So don't call it marriage. Have a standard government backed civil union type thing that any two (or more) people can enter into under the law and let the churches handle whatever joined under god nonsense they want.
Separate but equal?
No. Fuck that, and fuck the church. They're even worse than the government. We live in a secular society, like it or not. Marriage is now a secular institution.
I for one want the government out of marriage. Let the churches deal with "marriage"
Tough noogies. The church lost control of the institute of marriage when it failed to treat people equally. That ship has sailed, and it's not ever coming back.
I find that going through some key functions (assuming you can find them) and reformatting them to your own liking can be helpful, commenting code along the way. Then if you want to get more aggressive, start cleaning up some code in minor ways that still stay true to the function's meaning. After you've done a bit of that, you should probably have at least a vague idea what's going on.
I do not have a problem with them not paying more than they are legally required to, but only to a certain extent. And that extent is when they start pumping money into lobbyists and political donations to KEEP those laws unfairly in their favor. If businesses stay out of politics, then they cannot be blamed when they get advantages from it. But, when they essentially buy our politicians and laws, I have a lot less tolerance for the "I was just following the law" excuse.
Apple spends comparatively little on lobbying, even by tech standards. And even if they did lobby extensively (which they don't) perhaps we should be faulting our Congresscritters for maintaining a status quo where corporate money buys influence? Don't you think that maybe the fault lies there?
The point of the scrutiny is to shine enough light on the loophole that there will be political will to close it without just the usual one-sided "they are raising taxes!!!".
Last I checked, Apple doesn't write the laws. They don't even spend that much money lobbying. In fact, it is Congress that writes the laws.
That would be well and good if it weren't for one inconvenient fact: the defendant in such cases must prove their innocence, rather than the other way around. Practically speaking, it means that cases that would never actually make it to trial in the US are pursued by the litigants in an effort to use the courts as a weapon to abuse the defendant.
Anyone can threaten anyone else with legal action.
Agreed, but that's a gross oversimplification of the specifics of my situation. Prior to the US taking action to prevent such abuses at the hands of the UK courts, I could have actually been dragged into UK court (in absentia, or course) and held accountable under UK law. At the time, the damages awarded by a UK court would be enforceable in the US, thereby holding a US citizen (me) accountable under UK law, nevermind the fact that the website was US based and I never actually set foot in the UK. So to say that anyone can threaten anyone else misses the point that there was actually a real possibility of Bad Shit Happening. The fact that the saber-rattling UK law firm that had been engaged was a very high-end firm made the situation quite a bit more grave.
Once the US SPEECH act was signed into law, of course, I posted the C&D and pointed and laughed, just as all good Americans should do when faced with such specious threats.
While, obviously, I can't give legal advice, if threatened by English libel proceedings when it is clear that using English law would be a nonsense, the correct response may be to respond to that effect - that England is not the most appropriate jurisdiction, that English law should not apply, and that if they do bring proceedings, you will dispute jurisdiction.
Prior to the US SPEECH act, you'd be dead wrong. US citizens have been found liable for libel (heh) and defamation under UK law while never setting foot in the UK, sometimes even by non-UK entities who were forum shopping. That's what made the whole situation so appalling, in fact -- that the UK (okay, English courts, specifically) allowed for such ridiculous abuses.
Some further bits and pieces: one of the moderators of the website I run is in fact a trial lawyer for the English government, and it was she who assessed the seriousness of the threat. It was quite serious, so much so that after advising me to take the C&D gravely seriously, she went into hiding (in the online sense) and didn't return for about a year afterward.
Let me paraphrase in an off-topic manner: US had to deny signing some treaties in order to prevent US soldiers from being abused by the courts of the world for war crimes which are very much acceptable in the US. Zing!
If this is the entirety of your worldview, you lead a very sheltered life.
I'm definitely not making the assumption that the US system is better. It's fairly clear to me, though, that "free speech" isn't held in quite the same regard in English courts as it is in the US.
As an aside, I (a US citizen) was once threatened (by a UK entity) with legal action for comments that appeared on a website I run. The website is US-based, and the comments were firmly in the realm of opinion, and thus perfectly legal under US law. At the time, the law shielding US citizens from abuse by UK courts had been passed by congress, but not yet signed into law. I was actually sweating it for a couple weeks while I waited for the bill to be signed into law.
How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.
Yes, but those people are morons. Believe me, I could cherry-pick some frightening statements by Brits from some of the international forums I frequent that would tend to suggest that the UK is full of complete nincompoops. It would be completely slanted, of course, and so would prove nothing.
Just like your observation about people screaming about the constitution.
Here's an idea: stop trying to make everything about the US. The world doesn't revolve around you: you don't have to interject about how proud you are of your "country".
He has a point, though. The UK libel / defamation laws are appalling. So much so that the US had to break some treaties in order to prevent US citizens from being abused by the UK courts for speech which is very much acceptable in the US.
That's either the most absurd thing I've ever read on slashdot, or some very sublime humor. And really, at some point, it probably doesn't matter which is which.
The McCarthyism comparisons stem from the robot6 article - it is not just a boycott (something I would be perfectly fine with), but extends to "the gay-rights advocacy initiative All Out to spearhead a petition demanding the publisher drop the author." Other than the fact that it is a gay rights group rather than prominent politicians, there is a rather striking comparison.
Except that in order to make such a comparison, one must first conflate democracy with capitalism. This is not the government persecuting an individual, and thus the comparison to McCarthyism falls flat.
Furthermore, I must state categorically that the publisher has every right to choose stories and authors according to whatever criteria they wish. The suggestion that the publisher should be restrained from making those decisions is, in fact, inconsistent with a free democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It would not.
So don't call it marriage. Have a standard government backed civil union type thing that any two (or more) people can enter into under the law and let the churches handle whatever joined under god nonsense they want.
Separate but equal?
No. Fuck that, and fuck the church. They're even worse than the government. We live in a secular society, like it or not. Marriage is now a secular institution.
I for one want the government out of marriage. Let the churches deal with "marriage"
Tough noogies. The church lost control of the institute of marriage when it failed to treat people equally. That ship has sailed, and it's not ever coming back.
I find that going through some key functions (assuming you can find them) and reformatting them to your own liking can be helpful, commenting code along the way. Then if you want to get more aggressive, start cleaning up some code in minor ways that still stay true to the function's meaning. After you've done a bit of that, you should probably have at least a vague idea what's going on.
The only thing better than arguing with people on the internet is to watch Brits argue with each other.
Carry on.
Where is the "-1 Pedantic" moderation option?
I do not have a problem with them not paying more than they are legally required to, but only to a certain extent. And that extent is when they start pumping money into lobbyists and political donations to KEEP those laws unfairly in their favor. If businesses stay out of politics, then they cannot be blamed when they get advantages from it. But, when they essentially buy our politicians and laws, I have a lot less tolerance for the "I was just following the law" excuse.
Apple spends comparatively little on lobbying, even by tech standards. And even if they did lobby extensively (which they don't) perhaps we should be faulting our Congresscritters for maintaining a status quo where corporate money buys influence? Don't you think that maybe the fault lies there?
The point of the scrutiny is to shine enough light on the loophole that there will be political will to close it without just the usual one-sided "they are raising taxes!!!".
Last I checked, Apple doesn't write the laws. They don't even spend that much money lobbying. In fact, it is Congress that writes the laws.
Paying for the nice first world infrastructure that allows the company to exist is "throwing money away"?
Let's be absolutely clear here: In Apple's case, they are probably the largest corporate taxpayer in the US.
I think you missed the part where touchscreens actually became wildly successful, both on phones and tablets.
All my mod points are belong to you (if I had any).
the implication here is that defamation involves falsehoods.
Unless the case is tried in English courts, in which case even the truth -- if it tends to defame -- is fair game for a trial.
That would be well and good if it weren't for one inconvenient fact: the defendant in such cases must prove their innocence, rather than the other way around. Practically speaking, it means that cases that would never actually make it to trial in the US are pursued by the litigants in an effort to use the courts as a weapon to abuse the defendant.
wait, verbal defamation is acceptable and protected under the First Amendment? First I've heard about it...
If it's factual and true, yes.If it's in the realm of opinion, then also yes.
Anyone can threaten anyone else with legal action.
Agreed, but that's a gross oversimplification of the specifics of my situation. Prior to the US taking action to prevent such abuses at the hands of the UK courts, I could have actually been dragged into UK court (in absentia, or course) and held accountable under UK law. At the time, the damages awarded by a UK court would be enforceable in the US, thereby holding a US citizen (me) accountable under UK law, nevermind the fact that the website was US based and I never actually set foot in the UK. So to say that anyone can threaten anyone else misses the point that there was actually a real possibility of Bad Shit Happening. The fact that the saber-rattling UK law firm that had been engaged was a very high-end firm made the situation quite a bit more grave.
Once the US SPEECH act was signed into law, of course, I posted the C&D and pointed and laughed, just as all good Americans should do when faced with such specious threats.
While, obviously, I can't give legal advice, if threatened by English libel proceedings when it is clear that using English law would be a nonsense, the correct response may be to respond to that effect - that England is not the most appropriate jurisdiction, that English law should not apply, and that if they do bring proceedings, you will dispute jurisdiction.
Prior to the US SPEECH act, you'd be dead wrong. US citizens have been found liable for libel (heh) and defamation under UK law while never setting foot in the UK, sometimes even by non-UK entities who were forum shopping. That's what made the whole situation so appalling, in fact -- that the UK (okay, English courts, specifically) allowed for such ridiculous abuses.
Here's some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
Some further bits and pieces: one of the moderators of the website I run is in fact a trial lawyer for the English government, and it was she who assessed the seriousness of the threat. It was quite serious, so much so that after advising me to take the C&D gravely seriously, she went into hiding (in the online sense) and didn't return for about a year afterward.
Citation needed.
Let me paraphrase in an off-topic manner: US had to deny signing some treaties in order to prevent US soldiers from being abused by the courts of the world for war crimes which are very much acceptable in the US.
Zing!
If this is the entirety of your worldview, you lead a very sheltered life.
"Zing" indeed.
I'm definitely not making the assumption that the US system is better. It's fairly clear to me, though, that "free speech" isn't held in quite the same regard in English courts as it is in the US.
As an aside, I (a US citizen) was once threatened (by a UK entity) with legal action for comments that appeared on a website I run. The website is US-based, and the comments were firmly in the realm of opinion, and thus perfectly legal under US law. At the time, the law shielding US citizens from abuse by UK courts had been passed by congress, but not yet signed into law. I was actually sweating it for a couple weeks while I waited for the bill to be signed into law.
How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.
Yes, but those people are morons. Believe me, I could cherry-pick some frightening statements by Brits from some of the international forums I frequent that would tend to suggest that the UK is full of complete nincompoops. It would be completely slanted, of course, and so would prove nothing.
Just like your observation about people screaming about the constitution.
Here's an idea: stop trying to make everything about the US. The world doesn't revolve around you: you don't have to interject about how proud you are of your "country".
He has a point, though. The UK libel / defamation laws are appalling. So much so that the US had to break some treaties in order to prevent US citizens from being abused by the UK courts for speech which is very much acceptable in the US.
That would make /. much worse.
That ship has sailed.
Slashdot is not the place for speculation.
That's either the most absurd thing I've ever read on slashdot, or some very sublime humor. And really, at some point, it probably doesn't matter which is which.
Emotional? No. Not at all. I don't have a dog in this race.
Willing to call people out for being idiots? Oh yes. Definitely.
The McCarthyism comparisons stem from the robot6 article - it is not just a boycott (something I would be perfectly fine with), but extends to "the gay-rights advocacy initiative All Out to spearhead a petition demanding the publisher drop the author." Other than the fact that it is a gay rights group rather than prominent politicians, there is a rather striking comparison.
Except that in order to make such a comparison, one must first conflate democracy with capitalism. This is not the government persecuting an individual, and thus the comparison to McCarthyism falls flat.
Furthermore, I must state categorically that the publisher has every right to choose stories and authors according to whatever criteria they wish. The suggestion that the publisher should be restrained from making those decisions is, in fact, inconsistent with a free democracy.
When you learn how to make coherent arguments, I'll take you seriously.