There are legal and financial advantages to marriage. For example, employee health care benefits often extend to spouses.
> So they can adopt children?
In some jurisdictions, yes (though in the USA single parent adoption is legal and fairly common so that doesn't really apply here).
>...we just do away with marriage laws and set up a child rearing law.
I agree. Marriage should not be any of the governments business. We already have lots of child-welfare laws that effectively regulate childrearing and the government is not allowed to regulate sexual conduct or cohabitation. These were the traditional reasons for marriage laws: what are they for now?
Right now many churches, especially christian churches, are private clubs with athletic facilities, single evening facilities, and adult facilities. These are paid for by tax deductible tithes and public subsidies through forgiveness of land tax. In effect, the church is used by middle class to evade taxes, and the uppeer class to shield assets from taxes.
With respect to non-religious activities churches are treated exactly the same as any other non-profit organinzation (which is not the same as charitable). Only land used for religious purposes is free of property tax and fees for use of such things as athletic facilities is not deductable.
>...I'd even accept Chinese dialects since they're the most spoken already.
More likely English. 1.8 billion people around the world speak it as a second language while Chinese is concentrated in China. There may be more Chinese speaking English as a second language than there are non-Chinese speakers of Chinese.
Yes. The point they have is that they need to harden their networks. There will always be cracked phones so they should not rely on control of the phones to protect them.
AT&T (the real one, not the present imposter) once used essentially the same argument against permitting "foreign" equipment to be plugged into their newtwork. Didn't work.
The employees have nowhere else to go, and you can pay minimum wage and really screw them over.
What the hell do you think they were doing before the plant opened? And what do you think prevents them from quitting and moving to the city as rural people have been doing for 150 years? People in towns that these companies move into are free to keep on doing whatever they were doing before the plant opened, or take a job at the plant. That is choice.
In many states the law requires merchants to state the sales tax and the price seperately. I think it's a good idea for people to be constantly reminded that they are paying sales tax.
The last part is key. "Self defense" and "willful assault" are mutually exclusive. It is also likely that the judge would look to state law for the definition of "willful assault". Thus in Texas convincing the court that you were a) unaware that this was a Federal agent and b) that you believed that you were defending your property (at night) would probably suffice. It would be better not to need to do this, though.
If you kill someone justifiably, and persuade the state not to prosecute you, it still hangs over your head for the rest of your life. The state can always come back and decide to prosecute you for manslaughter.
Unless you force the issue by filing for a declarative judgement. Better be sure you are going to win, though.
Also, most states have a statute of limitations for manslaughter.
The Bill of Rights wasn't an afterthought. It was a political compromise. The advocates agreed to support the Constitution as presented if the convention would agree that the Congress was to pass and send to the states a bill of rights (details to be worked out) as one if its first acts. As there were still honorable men involved in politics at that time the promise was fulfilled.
Slashdot Mirror
> Why do homosexual want to get married?
There are legal and financial advantages to marriage. For example, employee health care benefits often extend to spouses.
> So they can adopt children?
In some jurisdictions, yes (though in the USA single parent adoption is legal and fairly common so that doesn't really apply here).
> ...we just do away with marriage laws and set up a child rearing law.
I agree. Marriage should not be any of the governments business. We already have lots of child-welfare laws that effectively regulate childrearing and the government is not allowed to regulate sexual conduct or cohabitation. These were the traditional reasons for marriage laws: what are they for now?
You're right: I can't find any clear examples either.
With respect to non-religious activities churches are treated exactly the same as any other non-profit organinzation (which is not the same as charitable). Only land used for religious purposes is free of property tax and fees for use of such things as athletic facilities is not deductable.
In most countries with state religion the government recognizes only religious marriages (though I don't know that this is true of Finland).
IMHO government should have nothing whatever to do with marriage: it should be an entirely private matter.
> ...I'd even accept Chinese dialects since they're the most spoken already.
More likely English. 1.8 billion people around the world speak it as a second language while Chinese is concentrated in China. There may be more Chinese speaking English as a second language than there are non-Chinese speakers of Chinese.
> "if i was god, i'd make boobs grow on trees"
That's a fetish I'd never heard of. The images it calls up are not exactly erotic...
We may eventually have to admit that the hierarchical system won't scale sufficiently. Let's go back to bang paths and pathalias.
Yes. The point they have is that they need to harden their networks. There will always be cracked phones so they should not rely on control of the phones to protect them.
AT&T (the real one, not the present imposter) once used essentially the same argument against permitting "foreign" equipment to be plugged into their newtwork. Didn't work.
Surely having whatever you want is one of the "human rights" guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights?
The only society in which people of power are going to die "cold, hungry, and alone" is one where everyone else is already dead.
> Doesn't sound like government enforcement, ownership or monopoly.
He means copyright, which certainly is a government-enforced monopoly.
And, of course, no one can live without those movies...
For Slashdotters it is the women who are imaginary.
What the hell do you think they were doing before the plant opened? And what do you think prevents them from quitting and moving to the city as rural people have been doing for 150 years? People in towns that these companies move into are free to keep on doing whatever they were doing before the plant opened, or take a job at the plant. That is choice.
But none of the "glasses free" 3D systems work.
In many states the law requires merchants to state the sales tax and the price seperately. I think it's a good idea for people to be constantly reminded that they are paying sales tax.
Seems more likely that those places are simply free of licensed copies of Microsoft Windows.
The last part is key. "Self defense" and "willful assault" are mutually exclusive. It is also likely that the judge would look to state law for the definition of "willful assault". Thus in Texas convincing the court that you were a) unaware that this was a Federal agent and b) that you believed that you were defending your property (at night) would probably suffice. It would be better not to need to do this, though.
Unless you force the issue by filing for a declarative judgement. Better be sure you are going to win, though.
Also, most states have a statute of limitations for manslaughter.
You are a bit confused. The states are not the creatures of the Federal government. Quite the opposite.
The Bill of Rights wasn't an afterthought. It was a political compromise. The advocates agreed to support the Constitution as presented if the convention would agree that the Congress was to pass and send to the states a bill of rights (details to be worked out) as one if its first acts. As there were still honorable men involved in politics at that time the promise was fulfilled.
No, they don't "crunch the numbers". They "go with the gut".
No, he came across as a real conservative. Not many left.
The same guy would tell you that everything you see on CSI is absolutely true.