Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Ruling Supports Same-Sex Marriage
The U.S. Supreme Court issued Friday a landmark decision, ruling that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples. The New York Times notes that last year, by refusing to hear appeals to decisions favoring same-sex marriage in five states, the court "delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19." (In the time since, several more states have expanded marriage to include gay couples.) Reuters expains a bit of the legal and political history of the movement which led to today's decision, and points out some of the countries around the world which have made similar moves already.
Seriously off topic...
You religious wackos can stuff it!
dynasty has to live on, so if my firstborn (or theirs) is gay, they need to be abled to adopt somebody to pass over the frosty throne!
Its nice to see that there is some social progression being made in a country that has had such rocky times lately. Good luck to all the gay couples that can now be 'equals under the law'.
Bye!
First, congrats to all LGBT and to America as a whole.
Second, to Justice Scalia, in Nelson Munt's voice - HAW HAW. Your dissent was entertainingly shrill and dubious.
But I'm already married to my job!
A system of government that makes the people to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy
Being as he was one of the unelected lawyers who selected our president in 2000, he apparently has no sense of irony.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It's about damn time.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
This affects me about as much as just about all the other cases decided this year, which is to say not in the least.
Why don't you just say "I really don't care about anyone besides myself" instead of beating around the bush?
Now that we have gay marriage, can we finally get weed legalized?!
Now burn a Confederate flag to celebrate and let's move on.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The same "minds" that so eloquently discuss climate change and more recently the ACA decision on this site are about to turn their attention to gay marriage.
I can't wait for the fireworks.
Time? No, it is long overdue. Now it is time for incest.
There is no argument for making acceptance of gay marriage mandatory, that would not also apply to making sex between and marriage of parent and (adult) child or between siblings legal. "Troll" my foot — do try to come up with one...
This is hardly news — and some legal professionals have said so. And the fight for Full Marriage Equality is already ongoing. All over.
Oh, and before you say "Think of the (malformed) children of such unions!" — sorry, that's not enough. First of all, they don't have to have children with each other — like gay couples, they can adopt. Second, most of the existing laws banning incest make no difference between actual close blood-relatives "in laws" — it is equally illegal for a step-father to marry his adopted daughter (Woody Allen got away with it, because he never formally adopted his wife's child).
And third, the courts have ruled for years (here is a "1948 decision for example!), that any concerns for the health of the offspring are not sufficient grounds for denying the right to marry.
Within a generation the term "motherfucker" will become a disparaging sign of bigoted microaggression — which is, of course, much worse than the actual bona-fide aggression it manifests in our parochial times.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I heard a rumor somewhere that slashdot readers are actual human beings, do you deny it?
All of San Francisco is. Mississippi is bringing out their flag.
The reality is that for thousands of years and across all known cultures marriage has been defined as a relationship between different sexes.
The reality is that for thousands of years, most known cultures didn't have the word "marriage". They had some other word which may or may not have had precisely the same connotations. Now go forth and read Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe before you climb up on that horse again.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The reality is that for thousands of years and across all known cultures marriage has been defined as a relationship between different sexes. The fact that a majority of a minority culture in the world has chosen to call a cat a dog doesn't make it a dog.
The same reality is that for thousands of years and across all known cultures slavery has been accepted as the normal way of doing things. Are you REALLY going to go for the "heritage and history and tradition" angle?
Their right to be married and your right to be nerdy is the same right. Equality matters to everyone.
I am worried about what this will do to domestic partnerships. There are a lot of people under the insurance and other things of their domestic partners. Does this mean forced marriage?
"If the lord does not soon punish the United States he owe's a big apology to Sodom and Gamorrah"
There is no irony here. None. Florida fucked up its election process to hell and back. The US Constitution provides no mechanism--none--for redoing such an election or extending a presidential election until that state can get its head out of its ass and finish its election.
All they did was decide based on the law when and how to finish the vote tallying and force the state to declare a winner. It was the best decision they could constitutionally make.
You know why you should thank your lucky stars they didn't keep it going until everyone had warm fuzzies? Because then the SCOTUS would have arrogated to itself the power to let a sitting president stay in office beyond his constitutional term or allow a man who is not legally entitled to assume the presidency assume it.
Do you really want to live in a society where the SCOTUS can hold up an election so long that the President has to stay in office illegally or resign and then the VP can assume that office via succession law until the election is all hunky dory to all parties?
So now we have a right out of thin air that has been left to the states in every form since the founding of our country. The majority in this case have clearly decided that 'progress' should sustain and even override the Constitution. Scalia's dissent is very brute force and blunt ...and rings true. Justice Roberts, on the other hand, seems to be confused. He, along with Scalia in this case basically says, the federal government has no say in an institution that it never conceived or created..etc etc and it should be left to the states - but then yesterday in the ACA ruling he basically is part of the majority that there should be a new right out of thin air based on word games. i.e. What does 'state' actually mean, instead of just abiding by what the Constitution says.
The 14th amendment does talk about equality for all but it doesn't express a fundamental right to marry, even for heterosexuals. In other words, since the states have been handing out marriage certificates, it has never had a legal right to do nor a fundamental religious or natural reason to do so but the states chose to do so to help solidify a taxpayer base that was grounded in strong family units - (i.e. families that stay in the state that shop, live, eat and contribute overall to their communities) and the states recognized that a stable family unit was beneficial (whether you agree or question the motives).
What's to stop three people from wanting to marry? I don't mean to be a conspirator but according to the language that I see there is nothing that can stop it. What about four? How in this world now are we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued? I am waiting now for the first lawsuit to appear about a pastor at a church won't marry Jane and Sally because of the pastors firmly held beliefs and the core doctrine and tenants of the church's faith. I see there is language talking about this balance in the ruling - but that's not going to stop people from getting targeted and sued.
This is the beginning of mish mash of lawsuits that the SCOTUS has brought on all of us. If they can make up rights out of thin air then there's nothing stopping them from doing it again...and again..and scalia calls the court egotistical..with an overreaching hubris...
Today and yesterday really and truly make me afraid of our freedoms moving forward.
I'm gay and I'm ecstatic about the new ruling, but I don't see how this is news for nerds. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that so many of my fellow nerds are supportive of this, but I'm super confused about why it's on Slashdot...
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts. And why should being in a private contract give one special rights?
Special rights to special groups is how the government divides the people and enslaves us.
I think anyone that wants to bind themselves with such a contract should be free to. I don't see scrapping the rule of law (this is a state issue at best) as being a good idea. - the ends don't justify the means.
I celebrate freedom - not the end of the rule-of-law.
First it was socialized medicine...
Second it was gay marriage.....
You guys down south still have a ways to go, but the great Canadian takeover of American culture continues forward! Keep up the good work!
All known cultures? No. For example, right here in America, the original Americans -- specifically, the Native Americans of the Great Plains -- had what you would define as homosexual marriage. From http://plainshumanities.unl.ed...:
See also http://www.sinclair.edu/academ... , which notes that those relationships ranged from promiscuity to stable marriages, depending on the tribe. Among the Crow, for example, physiologically-female berdaches generally married women.
So you see, both acceptance of transgendered individuals and homosexual marriage is a long-standing American tradition.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Matthew 24:37-39 ...'But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.'
I know you guys like to roleplay being a human, but come on. The brave lizards of the infiltration squad wiped out all those monkeys years ago.
Drop the skinsuit and enjoy the surface world.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
How does this ruling effect local ordinances that make gay sec illegal. I think Texas and v the South still have a few...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts.
Yes that is exactly what is happening here. The government is no longer allowed to step in and stop two people from signing a marriage contract based on their sex.
If "get the government out of the business of regulating contracts" is your goal then you should be celebrating today's ruling.
Nope, news posted because slash dot is controlled by someone else and was told to post this crap. Who cares.
now that same sex partners are protected, I hope we can move on to getting rid of the polygamy stigma along with the lack of rights.
See, the thing about the religious right is that they firmly believe that God punishes them for your sins. So it's absolutely critical to them that you follow their personal beliefs...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The GOP should be happy that the supreme court ruled this way. The right's opposition to gay marriage has been one of their biggest obstacles to attracting young voters, but the supreme court has now made sure it's no longer a campaign issue. The more clever candidates on the right will figure out quickly that it's now in their best interest to just shut up about gay marriage and to focus on a part of their platform that's less toxic to young voters.
Based on the last 5 years or so of comments, I assumed all that was left was cats jumping on keyboards and maybe a few mental patients.
meow
I WANT MY CIGARETTES!!!!!
meow
They certainly still are in that business, it's still limited to 2 people after all. To get them out you need to revise tax, inheritance, and a slew of automatic assumptions under the law to not assume a binary or just ignore marriage altogether.
No sir I dont like it.
In their opinion on gay marriage, Roberts issues a dissenting opinion with the following quote:
The internal inconsistencies of the SCOTUS are appalling.
as if someone's religious liberties are being trampled on because they can no longer trample on the actual real liberties of others
religious liberty dimwits: an actual denial of religious liberty by the government would be the government saying you can't go to church
meanwhile, you being unable to decide how other people who are not in your religion live their lives does not mean you have been denied religious liberty
at all, in any way
all the demagogues on the right now whining about religious liberty are either:
1. lying to you and laughing at you to get your support for another agenda
2. proving they are as fucking stupid as you by proving they don't know what the concept means
to believe religious liberty means you have a "right" to deny liberties to others so simply means you don't have a fucking clue what liberty and freedom really means
your "freedom" to oppress others never existed, was never promised by the founding fathers (the establishment clause: separation of state and church pretty much explicitly states that), and has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, except as an example of how fucking stupid people can be in their conception of what actual freedom really is
all that happened today is the government stepped in and *preserved* freedom by denying the "right" of literally oppressive bigots and blind stupid assholes from trampling the freedom and liberty of real americans
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
maybe you should lead the campaign to allow polygamists to marry and see how far you get with that
I don't have a problem with the judges appointed to the Supreme Court doing whatever they want because they have the power and have the final say ("It's good to be me!"), but to attempt to tie it in legally to the Constitution when that does not apply is going a little overboard. You're making arbitrary decisions and rewriting the text of law (ie the Obamacare ruling), so let's just at least not try and justify it Constitutionally (beyond the Constitution giving the Supreme Court the authority to make the decisions they are presented in the first place). A simple "We have the authority to make this decision and the majority have done so" would suffice.
Better known as 318230.
Who cares what happens between consenting adults? This issue has been blown way out of proportion by religious fundamentalists in the US (mostly Christians). No one is forcing anyone to get married, merely extending that right (and the associated benefits) to all couples. No, the sky is not falling.
the comments about this on the foxnews site are just crazy. the postings are exploding with rage... its kinda scary.
How in this world now are we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued?
Fortunately, the Constitution provides an easy answer for this.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
. Note that that has two parts: One, government does not enshrine a religion into law. Two, government does not interfere in the practice of religion.
So If Im a Catholic priest, I don't have to marry a Protestant couple, even though Protestants obviously have the legal right to marry. (That's part two.)
The State, however, does not get that discretion. It can't pass laws to make Jewish marriages (for example) illegal. The courthouse has to marry Muslims, buddhists, Satanists, and atheists alike. (That's part one.)
Likewise, your church need not allow a gay couple to marry. (Part two.) But the courthouse cannot refuse to marry people just because they're gay (part one.)
Slavery is expressly addressed in the Constitution in the 13th Amendment. The definition of marriage is not. It is not a federal issue as the federal government does not issue marriage licenses - the states do.
Better known as 318230.
Great! This issue being finally resolved once and for all, we can go back to news for nerds. Can we?
Achille Talon
Hop!
nevermind that homosexuality is widely recorded across the animal kingdom
homosexuality is completely *natural*
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Slavery is expressly addressed in the Constitution in the 13th Amendment. The definition of marriage is not. It is not a federal issue as the federal government does not issue marriage licenses - the states do.
Perhaps you missed the 14th amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
so tell us more about how the federal government can't regulate marriage laws. the constitution says it can regulate ANY state law.
Indian kept slaves. "re you REALLY going to go for the "heritage and history and tradition" angle?"
Truthfully, gay-marriage is a reflection of our selfishness. Whereas marriage used to be about family, it's now about the feeling of the adults and children are optional. It started with divorce and I even blame my own Catholic Church for calling two people a family during marriage ceremonies. Both of those diluted what marriage is. Gay-marriage is just a continuation of that decline.
Originally, marriage was how we defined what a family is. Now I think we have to distinguish between family and marriage since most benefits were given to spouses with the assumption that they would be sacrificing their careers to raise children. I certainly don't think we should provide Social Security to a spouse simply because they get fucked by their significant other.
So what you're saying is ... that I can marry a cat or a dog as long as it's a different sex than me. Got it.
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts. And why should being in a private contract give one special rights?
Well, contracts exist only between the parties, right? They're not binding on anyone else. For example, if I sign a contract with my buddy buying your car for a dollar, you don't have to turn it over to me, just because I have a contract, right?
So, let's say you replace the marriage contract between two parties and the state and just have private contracts... Well, what requires a hospital to let you visit someone you signed a contract with in the ICU? What requires the IRS to let you two file taxes together? What requires the prosecution not to call them as a witness to your conduct? What requires the INS to let them come into the country, merely because they signed a contract with you? What requires a veteran's cemetery to let you be buried together if only one of you is a veteran? What prevents the state from taxing you on property when they die? Etc., etc. There are literally over a thousand rights and privileges that attach with marriage and are binding on third parties who never signed any contract.
Why? Because it's valuable to society. Having two people look out for each other drastically reduces expenses.
No one on this board is likely to marry anything with a pulse anytime soon....
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Yes they do, and now they will issue them to same sex couple because they are part of a country. Like it or not.
And thats that.
Prop 8 was of the people, as are all the constitutional amendments passed in many states explicitly defining what marriage is or isn't. Isn't that independence of the people? Who is it that's against independence now?
The 14th Amendment reads in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note that the only two descriptors of people are "persons" and "citizens." It doesn't talk about white, black, native, asian, gay, straight, or anything else. The only thing that counts is "citizen." So even if your state passed an amendment to its constitution that said black people couldn't drive on Sunday, it would be unconstitutional. This is the same reason the court invalidated laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages in Loving v. Virginia in 1968, a point which seems to have been lost on Justice Thomas.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts.
Yes that is exactly what is happening here. The government is no longer allowed to step in and stop two people from signing a marriage contract based on their sex.
If "get the government out of the business of regulating contracts" is your goal then you should be celebrating today's ruling.
It's not really about marriage as it is about acceptance. It's amazing that the same people who have pushed for gay-marriage are the same ones who 20 years ago claimed that they "didn't need a piece of paper to prove they're married." Significant, no? What these people should have pushed for was that all people be treated as single persons. No marriage whatsoever.
I think he's actually going for the "standard definitions" angle. And he should.
Let's form conclusions about "slavery" usefully while I redefine "slavery" to mean whatever I want it to mean within the discussion.
For thousands of years and across cultures the sun has been going around the earth. That fact that a minority culture in the world has chosen to call a cat a dog doesn't make it a dog.
This might be the first time a GNAA post would be on topic...
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
But it *is* a federal issue:
- The IRS is a federal agency that collects taxes from individuals and differentiates between "married" and "single" tax payers.
- The "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution says the states have to respect the public acts, records, and proceedings of every other state.
And use that as leverage to pick up liberal chicks!
There is no shortage of people leading the push for polygamy now. Why would we need one more?
See that "Preview" button?
Go fuck your sister, fucking hillbilly Yank.
Sorry, that hasn't been made legal yet, but probably should be in the near future a long as they are both consenting adults.
How does it ruin anything? If you have a problem and gay marriage ruins something for you, it's YOUR fucking problem, not anyone else's.
Go fuck your sister, fucking hillbilly Yank.
Calm down there AC.. Your side won... No need to get all bent out of shape at this point.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
While it had its place in the 18th and 19th century, the Electoral college has long outlived its usefulness. The entire concept of winner-take-all in most states means that only a few key states actually decide our election every time it comes around....until the rules change, that's how the system works whether you like it or not.
I'd like to agree with you, but it depends on the proposed method of election. Given the population distribution and unique division of powers between state and national governments within our nation, I'm not a fan of a direct popular vote for the presidency. I just don't believe it best encapsulates the spirit of our nation. While I would generally support a change over to the Congressional District Method, I am greatly concerned about gerrymandering and its affect on such a proposed alternative solution.
In fact, check out the statistics at the Daily Kos, then do the math. If every state followed the Congressional District Method, Romney would have won the 2012 election...by one electoral vote! Interestingly, Obama would have still won the 2008 election. I wonder what happened between 2008 and 2012 that would have made such a difference...
.. of the world's populations is under Equality laws.
I heard a rumor somewhere that slashdot readers are actual human beings, do you deny it?
I must confess that I do sometimes question the humanity of my fellow slashdotters, yes.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
I can evolve from a monkey
Any time, asshole.
Nope. It would be 8-2. You can't forget about his mute shadow.
Point being that the government should get out of defining marriage, to do so it needs to adjust all those laws that make assumptions about marriage.
No sir I dont like it.
For thousands of years, marriage was defined as "Parents of a girl gave her to some guy in an exchange of property in order to win some sort of social or political favor." So obviously, we can't ever change the errors of the past and must continue to treat women like property instead of equals in marriage!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Marriage is a contract recognized by the government because many of its provisions and benefits are defined and enforced by government and could not reasonably apply to private contracts between two private citizens. For example: visitation rights in hospitals, this is enforced by the government, if some random two people have a contract to allow visitation rights, the hospital has no reason to pay attention to that agreement, as they are not party to the contract. Another example is tax breaks for married couples, these breaks are defined and given by the government to married couples, but what if marriage was just a private contract? Any two people could just randomly sign a contract saying they are married, with no other stipulation, duties, or terms, and the government would have to offer those taxes to anyone who even had a marriage in name only, OR they would not offer the tax breaks at all, because it basically has no way to sift through all the different "marriage" contracts to determine which ones it thinks are healthy/productive/comprehensive/whatever enough to give tax breaks to. Or how about presumption of paternity in marriages: lets say Tom and Marsha have a private marriage contract saying Marsha's children are presumed to be Tom's as well, but Tom's work wont cover their children, because the private marriage contract is not binding on his workplace. What do they do? They get fucked, because without the government recognizing the rights of these contracts they are not legally binding on anyone but the private parties at play.
This is the problem with people who think marriage is some private or religious contract, it just isnt. People who think this are incredibly ignorant of what marriage really is.
"Due to gay marriage, the spouses are now considered dependents. Therefore, less money is coming into the IRS and we'll need to cut funds to the following social programs..."
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
I'd argue that many of these things would still apply under a private-contract scheme; simply produce the contract to get the right (though, for obvious reasons, it's likely that private marriage registries would be the preferable alternative)
Although in the case of IRS I'd argue that it's absurd that we continue to subsidize people for marrying each other.
Citation needed.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're already so into being butthurt.
Seriously. If you want a religious pledge, you can do that in the dark under a full moon with friends and family present. I still don't understand in any way why any state government should approve/disapprove of my relationship, or why I should care?
I understand that there are legal issues and there's the usual insurance scams that don't let you designate anyone you wish as a dependent. Anything aside from that? Is this just an insurance and inheritance issue resulting from a bunch of dumb, archaic laws?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Fine, you get your stupid cake and bouquet, but you agree to let us proselytize at your wedding and reception for the entire duration of your wedding and reception. From now on, that clause will be included in all of our business contracts. All of our customers will receive the same contract. Furthermore, you will also agree that all of our employees and designated proselytizers will be allowed to wear body cameras at your wedding and reception for the entire duration of your wedding and reception. That clause will be included in all of our business contracts. All of our customers will receive the same contract.
So, they can't decide women no longer have the vote. They can't decide black people can be property.
That's true because of the 13th and 19th amendments, respectively. Those rights were not due to court rulings (which went the other way).
That's an important distinction between the above two cases and SSM. Ostensibly the objection to this ruling is that the right did not come from the legislative process. Although I'm sure opponents would be equally pissed if SSM were legalized by a legislative process, I do think the gripe has some merit. SSM was legalized by one vote out of nine. It can be undone by the same amount. Other rights won through the supreme court (such as abortion and even the right to use contraception -- Griswold v. Connecticut) can also be undone if the supreme court membership changes. The same is not true for a constitutional amendment -- which is how many other major rights were endowed.
Is it a good or bad thing that the legislative process got bypassed? I don't know. I'd much rather see this type of thing handled by the legislature. However, I'm pragmatic. I think that we see lots of end runs around the legislative branch because the constitution is so darn inflexible with so many hurdles to pass legislation and constitutional amendments. That inflexibility was well intended, but if the constitution were just a little more flexible, I think we'd see the government work much more smoothly.
So, in order to address this concern, they crafted a specific amendment--the ninth--which says "hey look, this isn't an exhaustive list!"
And then everyone decides to ignore it and keep using the exact argument it was designed to address. Your argument.
If they can make up rights out of thin air
THEN THE COUNTRY WILL BE A MUCH BETTER PLACE. The right to privacy (ANY privacy, other than a physical search of papers) isn't in the constitution, either. I think the right for the government to keeps its nose out of my chromosomes and out of my crotch is also a pretty obvious, fundamental right. The ability to "make up" rights doesn't give the SCOTUS unlimited power; it only gives them the ability to limit the power of government, which is an ability that many people on both the right and the left greatly value.
and scalia calls the court egotistical..with an overreaching hubris...
Scalia is a hypocritical hyperreligious twat. Hubris is the quality exhibited by lawmakers (and their supporters) who think that the state should have the power to examine the chromosomes/genitals of its citizens in order to decide what rights they are entitled to.
There are African cultures (or were) where the males and females lived in separate huts. The males considered the female's genitalia unclean, because of menstruation and all that. The men would have the young boys (we're talking boys of all ages) perform fellatio on them, with the explanation that drinking the men's semen would make the boys grow up to be strong men as well.
Citing primitive cultures (Native American or otherwise) as some kind of model for our society is pointless.
Better known as 318230.
If 2 people want to get married, they have every right to be as miserable as every other married couple.
If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
So, let's say you replace the marriage contract between two parties and the state and just have private contracts... Well, what requires a hospital to let you visit someone you signed a contract with in the ICU? What requires the IRS to let you two file taxes together? What requires the prosecution not to call them as a witness to your conduct? What requires the INS to let them come into the country, merely because they signed a contract with you? What requires a veteran's cemetery to let you be buried together if only one of you is a veteran? What prevents the state from taxing you on property when they die? Etc., etc. There are literally over a thousand rights and privileges that attach with marriage and are binding on third parties who never signed any contract.
If this is the only thing that legal "marriage" is all about, then why restrict it in the ways we restrict it? Why can't a sister and a brother get all of these benefits, if they wanted? Why can't they have access to all of these wonderful legal benefits of "marriage"? Even if they don't have an incestuous relationship, but just are otherwise unmarried and love each other (even not "in that way")?
Oh, that's right... marriage is actually about something else. That "something" is really hard to define, and conservatives and liberals seem to disagree on exactly what it is, which leads to the gay marriage dispute.
The question I take away from GP's point, though is -- why can't you just have a bundled contract that grants all those rights? Why couldn't two sisters sign up for it together, instead of just an unrelated man and woman, or (as of today in the U.S.) two unrelated lesbians? Or how about three unrelated lesbians or a group of three gay guys or whatever -- couldn't they be eligible for most of those bundled contract rights?
If we're really going to divorce (no pun intended) the word "marriage" from its traditional definition, it's fine by me. But if it's mostly about the legal contract rights, we should have actual contracts that any group of consenting adults can sign onto. Perhaps we should group some of the rights separately, since a lot of marriage law once had to do with dependency (of the wife, in previous generations, as well as the kids) and how to handle children and estates. In an era of DINKs and no-fault divorce and now gay marriages, most of those centuries of accumulated archaic marriage law should be deprecated or rewritten.
Perhaps you can sign up for the "dependency" package of contract rights only when you can prove it -- thus a four-some of polyamorists only get tax benefits if they can prove dependency according to the laws we already have. If you want to sign up for the "procreation" package, then all the marital rights involving children apply. We can have the "cohabitation package" and the "estate-planning" package, etc.
And while we're at it, it's probably high time to institute a "temporary" version of many of these packages, with built-in prenuptial safeguards for unwitting spouses. You want to get married "till death do us part"? Fine -- sign up for the "permanency package," but it's harder to get out, and fault usually must be determined, with dire legal and financial consequences. You just want to get married "for as long as we both give a crap," then the "temporary" package is just for you -- let's be more honest about it, but also let's protect you from your own idiocy and build-in a reasonable pre-nup.
Oh, and the relationship between the "temporary" contract bundle and the "procreation" bundle is complex -- basically, you want to have kids, you should be able to commit to dealing with them until they reach maturity.
If it's really about contract law -- this is what is SHOULD look like. Instead, we have a mess of a contradictory set of wacky laws involving old assumptions about marriage structure, child-rearing, wife dependency, etc., along with a mishmash of sometimes arbitrary restrictions having to do with gay marriage (until today?), polygamy, incest, etc. If free association and self-determination are what everything is about, should we make the appropriate types of contract bundles available to any consenting adults who want them?
This affects me about as much as just about all the other cases decided this year, which is to say not in the least. On to the next topic. It's warm and sunny here, time to take the kids to the playground!
Methinks he/she doth protest too much!
Now they have their cake, can we please move on towards more important issues? If you need a piece of paper to tell you you're equal, good for you. If you need a piece of paper so the person you're with can suck benefits from your teet, good for you. Overall, this accomplished nothing today. We really just need to leave it as it stands today, and move on. The court systems are churning over this same crap day in and day out. (haha the captcha is 'repeated')
When asked to comment on today's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, God said, "The US is going to pay for this once the caliphate, I mean...Jesus comes back to straighten things out. It's like, what were they thinking giving human rights to corporations? What's that? This is about same sex marriage? Nah, I don't give a fuck. Peoples is peoples. Good for them."
Zeus could not be reached for comment, since he had transformed himself into a bull in order to have sex with Europa without his wife Hera finding out.
You are welcome on my lawn.
then you should celebrate this decision, as it's not the end of the rule of law.
Nor is freedom and equality is ever a state issue.
(We kind of fought a pretty significant and bloody war over that...)
There are certain benefits granted to married couples. Many of these make perfect sense. For example, when you die, your spouse gets automatic legal claim to your property or half of the estate, as well being exempt from rules and taxes that otherwise apply to the transfer of ownership upon death.
At least as long as you're heterosexual anyways.
For the longest time the law treated homosexual couples as legal strangers, unable to assume their partners estate even after a lifetime together, or unable to make any medical decisions for their incapacitated partner, indeed sometimes even unable to simply BE with their partner in the hospital. Or assume survivor benefits. Or a host of other examples.
All simple and accepted benefits and privileges granted to one group of married people, and not another, simply on the basis of their gender.
the only laws being scrapped here are unjust and unconstitutional laws that impose a discriminatory burden upon a segment of society.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Then remove all rights to marriage. That would work just fine as well - make marriage a contract as it has been in different places in the past. But don't deny the right to make that contract to random people because you don't like them.
homosexuality is completely *natural*
Ah, an appeal to nature! Rape, murder, incest, cancer, eating your young are also natural.
When logging onto slashdot today, I thought to myself. "I know this has absolutely no connection to technology*, but I"m sure I'll see gay marriage somewhere up there.".
Lo and behold, there it is.
May I suggest a new topic: "What is your favority candy?" or how about "Cute Kitten Photos"
*- I know someone will suggest "but lots of techs are gay"
my point is simply a refutation of the social conservative fallacy that homosexuality is "unnatural"
of course the existence of something in the natural kingdom does not mean automatic endorsement in morality
most notably, social policies nothing more than social darwinistic cruelty endorsed by many conservatives
but thank you for making a ridiculously broad statement without any logical coherence
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If this is the only thing that legal "marriage" is all about, then why restrict it in the ways we restrict it? Why can't a sister and a brother get all of these benefits, if they wanted? Why can't they have access to all of these wonderful legal benefits of "marriage"? Even if they don't have an incestuous relationship, but just are otherwise unmarried and love each other (even not "in that way")?
Because we don't want property passed between siblings probate-free?
The question I take away from GP's point, though is -- why can't you just have a bundled contract that grants all those rights? Why couldn't two sisters sign up for it together, instead of just an unrelated man and woman, or (as of today in the U.S.) two unrelated lesbians? Or how about three unrelated lesbians or a group of three gay guys or whatever -- couldn't they be eligible for most of those bundled contract rights?
Go re-read the post you're replying to. It explains why marriage places obligations on a bunch of parties who never signed any contract. Even if you bundle contracts, that still doesn't apply to people who never signed them.
I would argue further.
Marriage is now the domain of NON-STATE/FEDERAL entities, and let it exist as such, since there are obviously various definitions of it coming into existence.
Wanna get married? Fine, do it.
Your Church/social club/culture believes in marriage between (insert some definition of marriage here)? Fine, go ahead.
Want the state to grant tax rights, parental rights, etc? Nope, sorry, fill out the form establishing these things if you want them. If you want to marry your (insert definition of partner/s here), then fill out the appropriate paperwork for them to visit you in the hospital, whatever: file it, you're good to go.
The issue is not so much that everyone wants their thing. It's that everyone wants their things and wants the state to back them up on it and for everyone to pat them on the back and agree with them.
Would this kill the concept of marriage? almost certainly, over time.
Yes
I am a meat Popsicle.
Time to offend someone
Because we don't want property passed between siblings probate-free?
Why? Just because we want to charge taxes? Probate restrictions based on marriage are yet another archaic issue that needs significant reform, given the changing shift in marriage.
Go re-read the post you're replying to. It explains why marriage places obligations on a bunch of parties who never signed any contract. Even if you bundle contracts, that still doesn't apply to people who never signed them.
Sure it does if the government says it does... just like it currently does for marriage. The problem is right now we have a bunch of monolithic rights that are all shoved together into this legal morass. If people sign up for the correct "bundle" of "marriage," they get the various rights guaranteed by 3rd parties.
Or do you think that the government's extension of marriage rights to homosexuals today somehow can just be ignored by those 3rd parties? No -- if the government says X union with bundle of contracts Y is a "marriage" that entitles everyone to previous "marriage" rights Z, all third parties who grant rights Z would have to subscribe.
Of course, this is all a pipe dream. It's never going to happen in my lifetime. But it we were serious about putting marriage law on a rational basis, this is the kind of thing that should happen.
Because we don't want property passed between siblings probate-free?
Why? Just because we want to charge taxes? Probate restrictions based on marriage are yet another archaic issue that needs significant reform, given the changing shift in marriage.
Yes. It helps prevent the establishment of a hereditary aristocracy. Feel free to argue for those.
Go re-read the post you're replying to. It explains why marriage places obligations on a bunch of parties who never signed any contract. Even if you bundle contracts, that still doesn't apply to people who never signed them.
Sure it does if the government says it does... just like it currently does for marriage.
Then it's not really just "contracts," which is what you were proposing. So, just to be clear, you're now proposing that the government replace marriage with a bundle of rights and obligations that they will enforce on third parties? Like, say, marriage?
Or do you think that the government's extension of marriage rights to homosexuals today somehow can just be ignored by those 3rd parties? No -- if the government says X union with bundle of contracts Y is a "marriage" that entitles everyone to previous "marriage" rights Z, all third parties who grant rights Z would have to subscribe.
Of course, this is all a pipe dream. It's never going to happen in my lifetime. But it we were serious about putting marriage law on a rational basis, this is the kind of thing that should happen.
I have literally no idea what you're proposing here. Can you rephrase?
This affects me about as much as just about all the other cases decided this year, which is to say not in the least.
Why don't you just say "I really don't care about anyone besides myself" instead of beating around the bush?
because not caring about you is different than not caring about the majority of people who don't care about you.
You do realize that Americans slaughtered the Indians, right? There is no "long-standing American tradition" rooted in native belief: something "long-standing" has to be, well, standing. Moreover, it's stupid to appeal to some sort of "authority" of tradition, for exactly the same reason. It was a tradition to dispossess the Indians of their land and slaughter them in wars fought often through perfidy and the capture of leaders promised safe passage under a flag of parley: that tradition was barbaric and ended, and we are better for having broken with the tradition of making war against the native. Likewise we are better for having broken with the tradition of degrading and harassing the homosexual. We'll be even better off when we break with the tradition of legislating against conduct undertaken by consenting adults without harm to anyone.
Don't try to fight Scalia by looking for justification in the past. That's the essence of the conservative narrative of history. Look for the progress that we make by moving forward and shedding the vestiges of our own barbaric past.
Strawman; of course we are humans.
But this site's slogan is is news for nerds . What interest do nerds have of news about marriage rites?
And I don't mean the hipster neo-nerds who actually might grok sex or relationships. Not this site, no sirree. This site looks like it was designed in the 1990's. The upgrade to something looking like it was designed in the previous decade was shouted down. This is the last bastion of the honest-to-$DEITY, assembly-writing, coke-drinking, beer-bottle-bottom-spectacled elite.
I for one find people's preference in $EDITOR infinately more important and fascinating than their private social life (or, goes without saying, sexual preferences).
As someone who is recently separately and is likely to join the growing numbers of the divorced... I welcome any progress towards gay rights and marriage.
This should swell the number of divorces and make even more money for those who are employed in the divorce industry.
Good news for everyone I think ;)
Its nice to see that there is some social progression being made in a country that has had such rocky times lately. Good luck to all the gay couples that can now be 'equals under the law'.
still involves swearing an oath with right hand on the Bible. This speaks both to their valuation of the Bible [not my problem], and their valuation of their word. This latter part should concern you
Because this is a standard contract that also has implications for taxation, inheritance, joint finances, benefits, immigration, and a load of other things that require government cooperation.
Where the Constitution is silent, so should be the court. They have abdicated their responsibility to apply the Constitution, and now sit as philosopher-kings. This is tyranny, pure and simple. You might love this particular decision, but, as surely as the night follows the day, out of this tradition of activism will spring other decisions you will hate. Just sayin'.
Doesnt seem to solve the GGP's problem tho, which is that our government is in the business of giving special rights to people that enter a particular kind of contract.
Until you take a stand and say that the government shouldnt be doing that, you are just perpetuating oppression in my book. Sure, add homosexuals to your precious special rights group. Doesnt change the fact that the reason homosexuals want to get married are those special rights, nor does it change the fact that those that would prefer not to get married are forever an underclass without those special rights.
"His name was James Damore."
Just imagine if it were >2 people looking out for each other, like a whole family of people!
Even to unmarried couples?
A marriage between a male (or female) and a third-gender person is not the same as a homosexual marriage. It does not necessarily mean that homosexuality between two males, or between two females, is accepted unless one of them identifies with the berdache role. For a more extreme example, Iran accepts and promotes gender reassignment surgery. A gay couple can be executed, or one of them can undergo gender reassignment and then they can marry. Which doesn't make Iran accepting of homosexuality in any way.
Yes. It helps prevent the establishment of a hereditary aristocracy. Feel free to argue for those.
- the only reason to not burn all of your savings by the life end is to pass it to your own children and survivors, not to some unknown to you people, that makes no sense at all. I am going to argue that anybody who owns any property should be able to exercise complete control over that property without having any taxes charged by any government whatsoever and this means they must be able to pass that property to anybody whatsoever of their choosing and it is none of government's or the mob's business. But of-course the mob uses the oppression of the government to do their dirty work for them, to steal from a minority to subsidise themselves. It's is immoral and economically unsound behaviour and it is 'legalized' by the corrupt system that exists.
You can't handle the truth.
Says the one not knowing history. Ever herd of greek men mariage in ancient greece ? Or in China ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Gee it is not as if a ready to grasp encyclopedia *with* reference you can check, was not available.
Ohhh look at that snippet
This is your "never was a gay mariage". Sure christian ordered them killed and forbid that. Hurhur.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Yes, they were secularists. Their documents and entire idea of forming the country was from the French secularists post-Bonaparte.
Yes, those people were secularists.
And created a secularist country. The first one actually ratified as one in the world. A genuine first that you wish to remove from history just because you're a fundie, no different to ISIS.
Scary.
Whom, of course, the moment that polygamy becomes legal will immediately surrender their autonomy, careers, voting rights, and free will in general in order to cater exclusively to the nearest available rich man they can find, under the notion that a rich and powerful man can be a better arbiter of their own fate than their own selves. We will suddenly see a rush of beautiful hot women at every man worth 100K, eagerly negotiating with each other who gets to be first wife, second wife, etc, abandoning everything they've built in their lives just to get a slice of a rich man's pie, leaving all the not-so-rich and poor men to handle the ugly leftover dregs of femininity.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
If he really didn't care, he would have not bothered to write "Glad to hear it".
Sometimes an event happens that is good which is not at all pertinent to your life. Somewhere someone just had the best birthday party they ever had. Good for them, it does not effect our lives. On to the next thing.
In addition to less dramatic events like Tunguska and Chelyabinsk. Two destructive meteor strikes within the last 100 years. Hmm, let me think... Oh, I'm sorry, science just fascinates me. Say! Whom shall we prosecute for the HIV massacre of millions of innocent sex extremists and drug users?
Property, power of attorney and inheritance are pretty much it as far as I'm aware. But that ain't nothing. What happens to your property when you die, who can make decisions on your behalf if you're incapacitated, who has a valid right to raise your children, etc. are all pretty important issues. Having everybody more or less agree on how it's done through marriage and family lines was pretty convenient. If we do away with it, we'll have a lot of issues to work out, since the government ends up in the middle of all of those disputes once they go to court.
Gay marriage fits pretty neatly into those paradigms, so it seems like a no brainer. I'd be all for legalizing polygamy as well, but the 11 algorithms that are assumed in the law don't necessarily scale to 1N or NN. It seems like it would be worth coming up wtih some more baseline principles that would allow us to define who is "family" in a general way.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
White dudes had the right to marry white women and black dudes had the right to marry black women before Loving v. Virginia, but the court still ruled that prohibiting white dudes from marrying black women and black dudes from marrying white women was an equal rights issue. Now it seems like a no brainer, but at the time the same logical argument was made. I'm guessing we'll have the same perspective on it in another 20 years.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
You're so close!
> Why? Because it's valuable to society. Having two people look out for each other drastically reduces expenses.
All those benefits attach(ed) to a married couple, because society had an expectation upon that married couple to have children and stay together to raise them.
Times have changed since those benefits were attached, now we have IVF and baby monitors in the NICU and DNA testing to determine paternity.
But by extending marriage to mean same-sex marriage, we've simultaneously *lost* a word that describes a man and a woman coming together with the intention of sharing their lives together for the purposes of raising children.
Which means that all those benefits that were created to offset the additional costs that second group would almost certainly face, are now being claimed by couples who are unlikely to face them. Joint-filed taxes is a great example.
I'm surprised no one on here has really opposed the ruling.
of course the existence of something in the natural kingdom does not mean automatic endorsement in morality...but thank you for making a ridiculously broad statement without any logical coherence
Then what was the point of bringing it up?
Want to see people bent out of shape, you should go to one of the hype-social conservative Catholic forums on the web. Holy smokes, you've got people telling how God smucked down a tree in their neighborhood because He's so pissed off, and predicting that several states will secede. Someone on one forum even started blaming Neopagans (that one I confess I can't quite figure out).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The GP said: "The reality is that for thousands of years and across all known cultures marriage has been defined as a relationship between different sexes". I pointed out one simple example which shows that the assertion is false -- ironically, an American example. :-)
No one is proposing using primitive cultures as a model for American society, except the GP, who brought up the subject in the first place.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
But why are there legal issues? My girlfriend tells everyone we're married, we've been together longer than most marriages last (at least among all of our friends who got married) and yet we don't have the same rights as married people I can't get on her work insurance or file taxes jointly. How is this fair or equal?
There are certain benefits granted to married couples. Many
And why shouldn't unmarried couples or singles have those same rights?
Special rights to special groups is how the government divides the people and enslaves us.
Like the married group and the unmarried groups?
What the Supreme Court ruled today is that according to the Constitution you have no "religious liberty" to hurt gay people by denying them their rights.
"Duh, that's obvious" was the reaction of everyone in the civilized world.
So, let's say you replace the marriage contract between two parties and the state and just have private contracts... Well, what requires a hospital to let you visit someone you signed a contract with in the ICU? What requires the IRS to let you two file taxes together? What requires the prosecution not to call them as a witness to your conduct? What requires the INS to let them come into the country, merely because they signed a contract with you? What requires a veteran's cemetery to let you be buried together if only one of you is a veteran? What prevents the state from taxing you on property when they die? Etc., etc. There are literally over a thousand rights and privileges that attach with marriage and are binding on third parties who never signed any contract.
If this is the only thing that legal "marriage" is all about, then why restrict it in the ways we restrict it? Why can't a sister and a brother get all of these benefits, if they wanted? Why can't they have access to all of these wonderful legal benefits of "marriage"? Even if they don't have an incestuous relationship, but just are otherwise unmarried and love each other (even not "in that way")?
Oh, that's right... marriage is actually about something else. That "something" is really hard to define, and conservatives and liberals seem to disagree on exactly what it is, which leads to the gay marriage dispute.
Marriage is about economics and sexism.
It's a way for men to own their children, as the more sensical idea of children being their mother's property would have put the most valuable resource (labor) under the control of women, so men came up with a way to own women and by extension their children.
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See below... it's fact & truth!)
APK
P.S.=> FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)? It NO LONGER DOES!
AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me... apk
The state has plenty of reason to be involved. There's tonnes of property rights, power of attorney rights, responsibilities in regards to children, etc. It's almost childishly simplistic to say the State has no business there. You might as well endorse anarchy and call it a day.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You both need to declare that you are married, not just friends.
In that case if for example you pass away, your wife will inherit your possessions, not your parents.
That is why it's not automatic.
did you read what you replied to?
read. then reply
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Legalizing Robot-Human marriages.
N-way marriage already exists. Thank you, Supreme Court, for legitimizing Sharia.
So if the Shrill political party that seems to make regular contributions to Same Sex Scandals.. hadn't taken it up as a Poitical Function to make it "Illegal" it would have never gone to the Supreme Court.
I think the Republicans actually "Wanted Same Sex Marriage..." be careful what you "wish for.. you may actually succeed in getting it."
The "Defense of Marriage.. not only was struck down.. it led directly to a Law making it Legal"
And who do they blame?
For hundreds of years, thousands.. it really wasn't an issue.. until they took it upon themselves to damage and harm a select group of people in our society.. A Minority !!!! The most vile Evil people on the planet.. pursuing and prosecuting a "Minority" for Self Political Gain.. and know what they ended up Harming everyone.
They are beyond Evil now.. they are beyond redemption
Now that representative democracy is officially dead in America, I expect civil war to eventually break out. In less than fifty years, we will probably be seeing homosexuals openly killed in the West, as they are in the Middle East.
The proverbial closet was there to protect them.
Ahhh, I see! So all those people beating up gays and telling them to get back in the closet were just trying to protect them. Now I get it. Thanks for cluing us in. Somehow, if I were gay, I don't think I would be feeling much gratitude over that. Just sayin'.
Your Church/social club/culture marriage doesn't get you the 1,200 extra rights granted to state married people. There's no way to get them other than have a state marriage even if it has nothing to do with the state (eg, hospital visitation rights).
Does this mean I can force a baker to make me a cake with a Confederate flag on it?
Thanks to the Internet, the nearest hippie is only a few milliseconds away. What was it he wanted to ask, again?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
No matter where you stand on the underlying question, this ruling is just a bug fix on a long-standing architectural problem. I'll explain in software terms.
Why does the government even need a "definition of marriage" when things got along just fine for a Very Long Time without any governmental involvement in marriage whatsoever? See, if we still didn't have government involvement in the definition of marriage, this entire court case and the whole argument behind it would be moot. So why not just eliminate the whole problem, duplicating the situation we enjoyed until ~100 years or so ago?
The reason the government cares about the definition of marriage today is because lots of government benefits are tied to one's marital status. The resolution of who gets what payouts from the government when someone dies is the only real reason we need a government definition of marriage. And THAT problem stems from the incredible amount of involvement that government now has in the personal financial details of the lives of private citizens. Social Security, VA benefits, IRS tax status, you name it... there's real tax-funded money flowing around and thus the government has an interest (read: legal standing) in your marriage.
That isn't how our government was designed back in 1789. In system terms, the design parameters included almost NO direct interaction between the new central government and the individual citizens of the several States. And the system worked pretty well for quite a while... until just after 1900. That's when the central government suddenly, without precedent, started reaching into the private financial lives of previously private citizens. And that's when problems started to crop up.
This is EXACTLY what happens when a system is originally designed based on one set of criteria, but then is forced to behave completely differently. New, totally unanticipated, and structurally incompatible "features" are glommed onto an architecture that was never designed to support such things, and to support them all sorts of exceptions and special cases must be handled. What was once a simple, clean, efficient system is now a spaghetti coded mess of bandaids and patches, desperately trying to accommodate things wildly outside of the original design spec.
What happens when we do this to, say, an embedded system? It becomes inefficient. Buggy. Almost impossible to support.
And so here we are: Since about 1900 we have layered on so much spaghetti code, demanded so many incompatible features, that the system strains to operate at all. And every time we attempt to change it in one place, there are so many interdependencies that the layers of code just get deeper and more intractable and impossible.
Remember, the several states didn't used to have marriage licenses. Marriages were contracts entered into by two parties, with (generally) some member of a clergy as a witness (just as many other contracts have witnesses). You didn't need a license to get married because the government had no standing in the contract.
And that's how it should have stayed. Period. Two people want to enter into a contract that mingles their possessions? Fine! Been happening for eons. Sometimes the contract is written, sometimes it's verbal, whatever. (You may have limitations you wish to place on such contracts, such as genders or minimum ages or whatever, but let's not get buried in the minutia just yet.)
Fast-forward to today. Government is too involved in people's finances - the first layer of incompatible features. This raises questions about what happens to government-entangled money when someone dies or divorces, which means we need another layer of spaghetti code to deal with those exceptions and special cases. Then someone "with the best of intentions" (read: busybodies who want to use governmental authority to impose their personal standards on everyone else "for their own good") wants to define the term "marriage" their way. Voila, another layer of spaghetti code on top of, and all mixed in w
>Now go forth and read Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe before you climb up on that horse again. //
How about instead you provide examples of states [established in the Western tradition] adopting a common definition of marriage that encompassed homosexual couples? I'm sure we can rule out fringe cases of emperors dressing up boys as the concubine they murdered and insisting on having a wedding feast to celebrate their nuptials too, just to help you in choosing examples.
Haven't Gay's suffered enough?
Students can't read a Bible, or wear a cross, or say a prayer at lunch. They can't wear a Mitt Romney t-shirt or a John McCain t-shirt. They can't make a faith-based or political comment on a web page. Are the perpetrators of these discriminatory prohibitions ever disciplined, demoted, or fired? Quite the opposite. The fact of the matter is that religious liberties are perpetually under attack, and the perpetrators bizarrely believe they have a Constitutional right to limit any expression of faith whenever and wherever they please.
Regardless of where you stand on the underlying question, this ruling is just a bug fix on a long-standing architectural problem. I'll explain in software terms.
Why does the government even need a "definition of marriage" when things got along just fine for a Very Long Time without any governmental involvement in marriage whatsoever? See, if we still didn't have government involvement in the definition of marriage, this entire court case and the whole argument behind it would be moot. So why not just eliminate the whole problem, duplicating the situation we enjoyed until ~100 years or so ago?
The reason the government cares about the definition of marriage today is because lots of government benefits are tied to one's marital status. The resolution of who gets what payouts from the government when someone dies is the only real reason we need a government definition of marriage. And THAT problem stems from the incredible amount of involvement that government now has in the personal financial details of the lives of private citizens. Social Security, VA benefits, IRS tax status, you name it... there's real tax-funded money flowing around and thus the government has an interest (read: legal standing) in your marriage.
That isn't how our government was designed back in 1789. In system terms, the design parameters included almost NO direct interaction between the new central government and the individual citizens of the several States. And the system worked pretty well for quite a while... until just after 1900. That's when the central government suddenly, without precedent, started reaching into the private financial lives of previously private citizens. And that's when problems started to crop up.
This is EXACTLY what happens when a system is originally designed based on one set of criteria, but then is forced to behave completely differently. New, totally unanticipated, and structurally incompatible "features" are glommed onto an architecture that was never designed to support such things, and to support them all sorts of exceptions and special cases must be handled. What was once a simple, clean, efficient system is now a spaghetti coded mess of bandaids and patches, desperately trying to accommodate things wildly outside of the original design spec.
What happens when we do this to, say, an embedded system? It becomes inefficient. Buggy. Almost impossible to support.
And so here we are: Since about 1900 we have layered on so much spaghetti code, demanded so many incompatible features, that the system strains to operate at all. And every time we attempt to change it in one place, there are so many interdependencies that the layers of code just get deeper and more intractable and impossible.
Remember, the several states didn't used to have marriage licenses. Marriages were contracts entered into by two parties, with (generally) some member of a clergy as a witness (just as many other contracts have witnesses). You didn't need a license to get married because the government had no standing in the contract.
And that's how it should have stayed. Period. Two people want to enter into a contract that mingles their possessions? Fine! Been happening for eons. Sometimes the contract is written, sometimes it's verbal, whatever. (You may have limitations you wish to place on such contracts, such as genders or minimum ages or whatever, but let's not get buried in the minutia just yet.)
Fast-forward to today. Government is too involved in people's finances - the first layer of incompatible features. This raises questions about what happens to government-entangled money when someone dies or divorces, which means we need another layer of spaghetti code to deal with those exceptions and special cases. Then someone "with the best of intentions" (read: busybodies who want to use governmental authority to impose their personal standards on everyone else "for their own good") wants to define the term "marriage" their way. Voila, another layer of spaghetti code on top of, and all mixed
The constitution does not endow rights. The constitution delineates most rights mainly by restricting the government's ability to interfere.
Reconcile your argument with the 19th amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
What's your reading? Did women always have the right to vote but the government was interfering with that right until the 19th amendment restricted the government from doing so? Just because the amendment used a double negative doesn't mean the right existed beforehand hand.
That's was a warm-up. Now, reconcile your argument with the 13th amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
I'm sure that amendment didn't give anyone rights -- rights that were never explicitly banned before...
For all intents and purposes, those two amendments enshrined rights in law. Before them, slaves were and universal suffrage was not. If that's not endowing rights, I don't know what is.
Maybe you just want to argue about some sort of relativism -- that rights float in the ether independent of government. Regardless, there's a bonus question: if the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is so powerful, why was the 19th amendment needed? Do you see where I'm coming from?
So your argument is that the 19th amendment shouldn't have been necessary, and it was only needed because the courts wouldn't apply the 14th amendment properly?
That's a self-consistent reading, and I'm all for giving people more rights, but I just don't see it in the text of the 14th amendment. Does the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" really mean "any right [that doesn't violate the golden rule]"? It would be nice if it did. I'm not holding my breath for the courts to enforce it that way.
I agree with the raisin ruling, but that really seems like a 5th amendment thing to me ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"). I also agree that there are many laws that should go, but just like for the raisins, I think a lot of the fire power comes from other amendments -- without the need for everything under the sun to be a privilege or immunity.
In the past, I thought: live and let live.
Now, I can say: live and let love,
And I hope we can all: love and let love.
I think the government works too capriciously as is -- because of the inflexibility I mentioned. It seems counter-intuitive, but it wouldn't be the first time that a well-intentioned, strong rule backfired -- causing the rule to be strong in principle but weak in practice (because everyone ignored it).
Passing laws is a real hassle in the US. They have to get a majority of votes in the house, 60% of votes in the Senate, not be vetoed by the president, and not be struck down by the courts -- and that's not even counting hurdles within congress (committees, leadership support, etc.) And you know what? It isn't needed. Many governments operate just fine with a parliamentary system that only has one real legislative body and a judiciary. In fact, well functioning presidential governments are quite rare -- and now we're seeing why.
What's the effect of a screwed up legislative branch in a presidential system? The executive branch taking more power (e.g. Obama's executive order wrt illegal immigration). That's now how it's supposed to work, but sometimes things need to get done, and if the legislative branch sits there, one of the other branches will take its power. In the longrun, it's dangerous. It's exactly the thing the checks and balances (inflexibility) was meant to prevent. Oh well.
Ditto with the constitution. The interstate commerce clause is used as the justification so much federal legislation, but it wasn't meant to be that way. The issue is that the constitution was not written with the needs of a modern government in mind. Rather than update the constitution (which is a pain in the ass), we warp the constitution to fit our -- often legitimate -- purposes. However, once we start bending the meaning of the constitution like that, it stops blocking the bad things it was meant to block.
Like all things, there's a happy medium between to weak and too strong. I just think that we're on the too-strong side.
The government does *not* decide who can and can't get married. All it does is regulate and enforce contracts between parties. If you want to get married, do not wait until the government tells you it is OK, just go do it!
Point being that the government should get out of defining marriage, to do so it needs to adjust all those laws that make assumptions about marriage.
This. The Government has no business telling the citizens what contracts they can or cannot make with each other. Legally, marriage has a host of baggage (inheritance, visitation, taxation, etc) that legitimizes the Supreme Court's actions. The 14th Amendment applies to the legal aspects of marriage, not to marriage itself, but because of those connections, it affects much more than who gets the house when one spouse dies. Married or not married doesn't define classes (the sexual revolution shot that to hell), but when there's money on the line, people get all kinds of upset if a piece of paper (marriage contract) keeps them from it.
Instead of "legalizing gay marriage" or "outlawing gay marriage", the people (who hold all the rights not specifically identified in the constitution) should remove the legality from marriage and return it to what it was intended for: to build strong family relationships and teach children how to be productive, balanced citizens. Essentially, marriage should stop being a contract requiring courts to begin and end and return to being the building block of society.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
What horrible legislature or report came out today that they needed to hide it behind gay marriage legalization. Did TPP go through?
Now that's gay, I mean homosexual. I mean...whatever.. can we get the word gay back now??!? :P
When I finally do visit Paris for the first time, I'd like to have a Gay old Time
Apples and oranges argument. That's one of the major problems -- people can't see the nuances of the argument.
How about instead you provide examples of states [established in the Western tradition]
What does that mean? By fire and force?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually if you'd read my subject instead of just the comment you would have seen that I said I was glad to hear the news (implied: because it's good news for somebody else) but it was not terribly relevant to me. Sorry if I'm not out actively celebrating this ruling any more than I am that raisin farmer in Oregon who doesn't have to give the government his raisins, or the family in Ohio who now gets to sit through a third murder trial.
But I suppose it's just easier to shoot from the hip at someone who's not cheering with the expected level of enthusiasm.
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3mb-11mb, current data vs. threats + ads (things adblock variants can't do & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See subject + 'p.s.' below - Says it all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock & AdBlock variants = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (adding to messagepassing overheads from SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NONE do a fraction of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
Above shows otherwise & 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR w/ less & you RAN from it - 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
So you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray DETECTS + BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
APK
P.S.=> Quote Howard Stark from "Captain America" - hosts (Captain America Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight" - Howard Stark
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)
Google's going to have a tough time explaining multiple PROOFS below that my ware's COMPLETELY CLEAN:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
* :)
In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
(which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)
I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?
YOU DID, homo!
Too bad it was you only ending up failing badly on all accounts.
APK
P.S.=> Besides "Andy Ole' Boy" - you obviously *LOVE* getting "ass raped" like the twisted homo you are, since I certainly RAMMED IT HOME ON YOU, lol, REPEATEDLY HERE (due to your stupid errors in technicals) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - you only brought it on yourself... apk
"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)
Google's going to have a tough time explaining multiple PROOFS below that my ware's COMPLETELY CLEAN:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
* :)
In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
(which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)
I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?
YOU DID, Mr. Advertiser homo that works @ CLOUDWORDS (Marketo affiliate) - small wonder you hate things like hosts that actually WORK blocking ads (unlike bribed almostalladsblocked)!
You failed badly on all accounts.
APK
P.S.=> Besides "Andy Ole' Boy" - you obviously *LOVE* getting "ass raped" like the twisted homo you are, since I certainly RAMMED IT HOME ON YOU, lol, REPEATEDLY HERE (due to your stupid errors in technicals) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - you only brought it on yourself... apk
It sounds attractive, but actually there is much good that comes of it.
Visitation rights and natural assumption of your spouse's property for starters.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts.
Yes that is exactly what is happening here. The government is no longer allowed to step in and stop two people from signing a marriage contract based on their sex.
If "get the government out of the business of regulating contracts" is your goal then you should be celebrating today's ruling.
Marriage as it currently exists in the U.S. is not between two parties. It's between three parties -- the two people getting married, and the people of the State they're getting married in (as represented by whichever person or persons is authorized by the State to sign the marriage license). 35 states put on their ballots the question to the people of those States if they wished to be a party to a contract where the other two people where of the same sex. 32 of those states said no, they do not. The Supreme Court told the people of those 32 states that they will be parties to those contracts whether they wish to or not.
The sad part is that marriage in and of itself had nothing to do with government for most of history -- a marriage was two people standing before their community and agreeing to abide by a standard of marriage set by that community, and the community agreeing to support them in it. Gays can now make the states issue them pieces of paper that say they're married, but without the community really and truly agreeing that they are, well, just like the Constitution seems to be these days, those supposed marriage licenses are just a piece of paper.
Equal Protection Clause. Just Google it.
Why is this Concern only mentioned in the context of marriage equality? Marriages have been a civil contract for a very long time - religion only gets involved if a church is hosting a wedding.
Because everyone has thousands of dollars to spend on attorneys to do the same job of a $30 marriage license from the local courthouse?
While this decision to allow homosexual people to marry is to be praised, there are groups of other people still being discriminated against and prevented from marrying even though they love and commit to each other.
A good example of a group still being discriminated against are consenting adults who wish to marry into polygamous relationships. Why do these people not deserve the same rights and protections as homosexual and heterosexual people?
#EqualRightsForAllHumans
Because churches refused to wed the elderly or infertile couples? Concern trolls never did figure out an answer for that one, did you? Well, you wont have to worry about that any more.
Because most people aren't idiots.
Using that logic, polygamy should also be legal again. Just because a state decides that multiple marriages are illegal, this ruling implies that ANY marriage, legal or not in that state, would have to be recognized by every state based on this interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
After polygamy, what's next? Marriages to pets? (you know there are a few that would do it.) Marriages to inanimate objects? Marriages to deities?
--
I believe he was using it as an example showing that those people who claim marriage has always been one man/one woman are actually just lying little bitches.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
See subject & "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage vs. addons
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity + slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
See subject & "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage vs. addons
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity + slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
See subject & "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. these Coren22 by ac - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stops C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage vs. addons
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.
(Only thing ya bit was my dust!)
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons used in a browser via native browser methods!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity + slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
---
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?
Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!
* AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!
APK
P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk
Do you americans know why you are hated in the world? You destruct humanity and think it's OK. Good luck, idiots.
Yes, pretty sure allowing gay people to marry is a major step toward enslaving us. Moron.
They aren't without these special rights, absent marriage, they don't NEED these special right, now are they applicable.
Marriage is not available to faggots, because marriage is the church-sanctioned carnal union of one genetical man and one genetical woman.
(In some freemasonic countries like France, the state has nationalized the right to register marriages and sidelined the churches, leading to France's resounding defeat and humiliation in 1940, because masons and atheists have no patriotism.)
Anyhow, the jews are working hard to turn the goy man's arsehole into the 21st century vagina. Next step will be to offer "marriage" between human and animal, so the goyim men and women will voluntarily degrade themselves into animals by living and sleeping with animals. The jews can then feel justified to cull all the filthy goyim beasts and rule the barren planet, as they promised to themselves.
Yet, the throne of St. Peter will hopefully soon be occupied by a new Pius X, not this Mossad shill Bergoglio. The new saintly pontiff will then issue the bull "Septimseverimus Deus" thereby excommunicating all the world's sodomite and bestialists and those who propagandize sodomy and bestialism. He will don armour and lead a new crusade, to cleanse the planet of all unnatural fornicators and crush their zionist puppetmasters! That will be the holy war to end all wars, because without the cunning greed and sadistic vileness of jews, there would be no war on Earth.
Until the government stops discriminating against polygamy, and the asexual, it is still unfair.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Thank you for teaching me a new word.
If it's YOUR property, take it to YOUR grave. The second it leaves your hands, you're bound by the social order of taxes. To LEAVE it to GOVERNMENT to enact your will and you're bound by the social order of taxes again.
Now, if you want to argue that upon your death all your property is abandoned and it's a free-for-all, well, that at least makes some sense. But I can only imagine that being a very bloody affair. Pro-tip: I don't think banks, stocks, etc are going to give up your property when you die to your family.
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).
---
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?
Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!
* AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!
APK
P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk
So you're saying marriage should be revoked for hetero couples without children, and given instead to gay families with children.
....so said the polygamists.
Here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... or here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* There sure was from him before that, see the quotes in them, + afterwards out of him in the link below next...
APK
P.S.=> Despite data from reputable sources + facts in thosefirst 2 links?
The "best" andymadigan had was acting like a petulant little girl here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (small wonder why on that note too, & HE NOTES WHY too - lol)... apk
See subject & solid facts here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* "Defending yourself" by ac posts now, andymadigan?
Puh-leese, lmao!
(Clue - there's NO DEFENDING YOURSELF vs. facts & truth in those 2 links above, NOR against your acting like an imbecile after you defeated yourself (see link below as "proof thereof"...).
APK
P.S.=> Despite data from reputable sources + facts in those first 2 links shown above?
The "best" andymadigan had was acting like a petulant little girl here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (small wonder why on that note too, & HE NOTES WHY there too - lol)... apk
I thought this was a technology forum and not a political forum?
Good for the gays, but let's move along now.
fuck off, racist scum
Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!
APK
P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
For the BEST hosts file?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
... apk
Can ublock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that better than addons & more efficiently in cpu + memory use
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!
APK
P.S.=> UBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ublock's NOT as efficient as hosts:
Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.
UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
+
ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!
+
UBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
For the BEST hosts file?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's better?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
Prove me wrong here UBlock http://slashdot.org/comments.p... or here AlmostALLAdsBlocked http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Poor Dave420 the webmaster & advertiser, who tipped his hand on his "motivations" to troll/harass/stalk me since he IS those things & he FEARS hosts files, lol...)
APK
P.S.=> Instead, Dave420 AGREES with my points on hosts giving users more speed, security, reliability + anonymity being solid & correct doing the job better than other "so-called 'solutions'" as in those 3 links above regarding AlmostALLAdsBlocked, UBlock, & AlmostALLAdsBlocked+ -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
"I just reply to you when I see you spamming Slashdot with your nonsense"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
Why'd you agree w/ my points on hosts then? Quoting you:
"I'm not denying all those things" - by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @11:39AM (#47927435) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Of course not: It's impossible to dispute HOSTS FILES superiority to other methods!
Since my points in favor of hosts SINGLE FILE native kernelmode faster part show hosts doing more w/ less vs. so-called 'competitors' many part messagepassing + cpu/ram use overheads laden slower usermode FAR MORE COMPLEX 'solutions' doing less than hosts do for more security, speed, reliability, + anonymity!
I make creating a superior more efficient solution EASIER!
(That's more than a mere trolling stalking harassing "ne'er-do-well" like yourself could *EVER* manage).
---
"I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming"- by dave420 (699308) on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:31AM (#49945047)
I bother you? Then WHY DON'T YOU DO IT & use 'em? Answer that!
(You stalk/harass me instead!)
OBVIOUSLY you don't & you're a "ne'er-do-well" troll & you have "other motivations" (next):
---
* QUESTION:
DO YOU WORK FOR AN ADVERTISING FIRM, or ARE YOU A WEBMASTER/WEBCODER http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , or a MALWARE MAKER, or ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH 1 OF MY COMPETITORS?
Answer it!
As per your usual you'll avoid every question, or lie & You've been EXPOSED in your "motives" in the last link just above, lol!
APK
P.S.=> See Dave420 the "pot puffing clown" SQUIRM - evasions galore will ensue (as well as effete downmods via sockpuppets to *try* vainly "hide it" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )... apk
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3mb-11mb current data vs. threats/ads (+ does things adblock(s) can't & U RAN vs. it http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
Screenshot -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says it all (& I didn't say it!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
AB+ too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/AdBlock variants = Less efficient on CPU & RAM (adding messagepass overhead in SLOW usermode vs. hosts in fast kernelmode) & NONE do a fraction of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
Above shows different & hosts do MORE BY FAR w/ less & U RAN vs. it - 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid Mr. CLOUDWORDS Advertiser (Marketo affiliate)?
Hosts = better & do FULLY work vs. ads (cutting YOUR MONEY): I see you/you're exposed.
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it, not hosts (via native browser methods).
APK
P.S.=> Quote Howard Stark from "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock etc (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)
Google's going to have a tough time explaining multiple PROOFS below that my ware's COMPLETELY CLEAN:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
* :)
In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
(which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)
I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?
YOU DID, Mr. Advertiser homo that works @ CLOUDWORDS (Marketo affiliate) - small wonder you hate things like hosts that actually WORK blocking ads (unlike bribed almostalladsblocked)!
You failed badly on all accounts.
APK
P.S.=> Besides "Andy Ole' Boy" - you obviously *LOVE* getting "ass raped" like the twisted homo you are, since I certainly RAMMED IT HOME ON YOU, lol, REPEATEDLY HERE (due to your stupid errors in technicals) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - you only brought it on yourself... apkb
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3mb-11mb current data vs. threats/ads (+ does things adblock(s) can't & U RAN vs. it http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
Screenshot -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says it all (& I didn't say it!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
AB+ too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/AdBlock variants = Less efficient on CPU & RAM (adding messagepass overhead in SLOW usermode vs. hosts in fast kernelmode) & NONE do a fraction of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
Above shows different & hosts do MORE BY FAR w/ less & U RAN vs. it - 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid Mr. CLOUDWORDS Advertiser (Marketo affiliate)?
Hosts = better & do FULLY work vs. ads (cutting YOUR MONEY): I see you/you're exposed.
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it, not hosts (via native browser methods).
APK
P.S.=> Quote Howard Stark from "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock etc (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)
Google's going to have a tough time explaining multiple PROOFS below that my ware's COMPLETELY CLEAN:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
* :)
In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
(which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)
I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?
YOU DID, Mr. Advertiser homo that works @ CLOUDWORDS (Marketo affiliate) - small wonder you hate things like hosts that actually WORK blocking ads (unlike bribed almostalladsblocked)!
You failed badly on all accounts.
APK
P.S.=> Besides "Andy Ole' Boy" - you obviously *LOVE* getting "ass raped" like the twisted homo you are, since I certainly RAMMED IT HOME ON YOU, lol, REPEATEDLY HERE (due to your stupid errors in technicals) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - you only brought it on yourself... apk
Perhaps you can sign up for the "dependency" package of contract rights only when you can prove it -- thus a four-some of polyamorists only get tax benefits if they can prove dependency according to the laws we already have. If you want to sign up for the "procreation" package, then all the marital rights involving children apply. We can have the "cohabitation package" and the "estate-planning" package, etc.
Did you work for the Windows Vista product team?
I know you're joking, however the decision does bring up some questions about marriage, what it is, and why government is involved with it at all. So far as I can tell the only reason government is involved at all, is because marriage does a number of things for you financially and your rights. First you get a bunch of income tax breaks, and second, some rights in court in terms of finance and possessions. Presumably these laws exist for pretty much two reasons, 1) To promote and to help families who would theoretically have kids, and 2) to "protect" the spouse that decides to be the primary person to raise those kids, who really may not make much external money.
Which is the first problem, is that even a traditional marriage, the couple may not want kids, or are unable to have any. Why are they afforded the same benefits as everyone else? Why do non-married people not get the same benefits?
Anyway congrats to all the folks who can now get legally married in the US. However getting the tax advantage is a bit balanced by the protection piece. When marriage works, the people are all very rosie about it, however I'm pretty sure just about every single divorced friend has said, never ever get married, just don't do it! So I guess some more people have some decisions to make, hopefully they make some right ones. Somehow with all the celebration about this decision, I can somehow see a lot of couples getting married that maybe shouldn't, and then a rash of court cases and divorce proceedings in a few years... we'll see how much they think of marriage then.
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
Oh, really? Ok: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: In the past, You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
Oh, really? Ok: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: In the past, You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
Oh, really? Ok: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: In the past, You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
Oh, really? Ok: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: In the past, You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
Oh, really? Ok: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: In the past, You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
Oh, really? Ok: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: In the past, You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk
See subject & "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
See subject & "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!": Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).
---
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?
Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!
* AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!
APK
P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).
---
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?
Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!
* AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!
APK
P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk
See subject & "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage vs. addons
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity + slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
Oh, really? Ok: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: In the past, You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).
---
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?
Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!
* AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!
APK
P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)
Google can try explaining it vs. proof my ware's CLEAN:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who also has the source & verified it safe too) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
* :)
In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?
(which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)
I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?
You failed badly on all accounts.
APK
P.S.=> Especially funny is that you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) which tips your hand & PROVED YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity, running away from this most of all -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
See subject: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
Additionally - have some manners!
It's NOT POLITE to talk with your mouth full as you "eat your words" quoted above after all that proof to the contrary from reputable sources.
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk
"Your hosts file comments are not trustworthy" - by omnichad (1198475) on Friday August 09, 2013 @11:22AM (#44520759)
See subject: MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who has seen & verified its sourcecode too no less as safe) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
&
MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus (per this VERY recent testing of them all) -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean (per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently) in BOTH its 64-bit model -> https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
---
Tells us, omniweasel:
* HOW'S IT TASTE "EATING YOUR WORDS" flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down spiced with the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT"?
LMAO...
Additionally - have some manners!
It's NOT POLITE to talk with your mouth full as you "eat your words" quoted above after all that proof to the contrary from reputable sources.
APK
P.S.=> Lastly: You also conceded MANY points on hosts to me & made huge mistakes vs. me here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
&
Here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
LMAO @ U, "omniloser"... apk