"George Bush is merely giving the people of the US a chance to define marriage."
More accurately he's giving congress a chance to define marriage. Either way, it's not the the public's prerogative to impose the majority's definition of marriage upon all of our nation's religions. Hence the First Amendment.
"The way I see it and 80% of Arkansas and 71% of Louisiana voters voted that..."
...slavery is a justified means of sustaining the Southern economy? That was the sentiment once upon a time, but just because a lot of folks believe something, that doesn't make it right.
"It is immoral which means it degrades security"
That's perhaps the weakest argument against same-sex marriage I've ever heard, and that's saying a lot.
"George Bush's marriage amendment was a response to renegade judges."
I agree that judges in this country are out of control, but GWB's reaction was a vast overcompensation.
Overall, I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that it should not be up to the Government or the Majority to impose one definition of a religious institution. That thinking contradicts the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment.
I say leave the definition of marriage to the religions themselves, and eliminate all government policy involving marriage. You'll probably say that such a move would weaken the incentive for couples to marry. To pre-emptively counter that, I submit that people who marry for the financial benefits pose a much greater threat to the institution of marriage than people of the same sex who genuinely love each other.
"For example, if gay marriage were accepted, then all public schools will teach that it is acceptable to marry someone of the same sex."
Is your public school teaching that it is unacceptable to marry someone of the same sex? IANAL, but that sounds like grounds for a lawsuit.
Schools have a hard enough time teaching math, science, history, reading, etc. without trying to preach a certain moral ethos. If that's what's happening in your school, I'd take them to task for it.
...what business does government have in framing public policy around a religious institution?
The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
"...but also that information security is still not recieving the attention it requires--especially from management and IT personnel."
Who then is supposed to give a shit about information security if not management and IT? It's stuff like this that makes me very unsympathetic towards companies with virus problems.
Use of Tired Cliches: Check! Arrogance: Check! Rightious Indignity: Check! Teen Angst: Check! Hip-Sounding Paranoia: Check! Rebellion Against "The Man": Check!
Thank you for verifying your age. You are indeed a teenager as you claim.
Why is it that so many Slashdotters piss and moan when any kind of system is released by commercial industry that isn't 100% flawless?
Now maybe I have it all wrong, but I'd say that when it comes to protecting children on the Internet (and yes, it's needed), this is a step in the right direction. Sure it has its flaws, but it's certainly better than nothing at all.
But it seems around here that if something isn't perfect right out of the gate, it's garbage (unless it's Open Source, in which case it gets free pass after free pass...).
Their answer has always been based on conservation over production. That's why there hasn't been a new power plant built in California in almost two decades.
Looking back on California's energy crisis a few years back, I think we can get a good idea of what a similar policy at a national level would do to this country.
"...but it's not really not that hard a price to pay."
Pay for what? What would they be buying? In this country, we expect to get something in return for our money. Taxation used simply as a means to redistribute wealth goes completely against this country's foundation of personal liberty.
My personal belief is that taxation and government involvement in peoples lives is inherantly an intrusion upon our liberties.
While a certain level of both is necessary to run a nation, but at what point do you believe they become an unacceptable burdon to a country's people?
Given that many Green Party ideals stem from increased government involvement, and would rely on higher levels of taxation to fund, please justify to us how such increases contribute to a free society.
"Your parroting that flimsy propaganda as if there wasn't even a problem shows your committment to Bush"
Actually I'm voting Libertarian this year, but thanks for trying!
Besides all that, there never should have been a recount, even a partial recount, because the provision for one was not in Florida election law. By demanding a recount, Gore basically attempted to re-write Florida election law during the election.
Now we can all agree that things were pretty close in Florida, and that Bush hasn't exactly done a stellar job at the helm. But I'm not inclined to trust a party that tries to change election laws (let alone during an election) to engineer a desired outcome. Trivial interest in democracy indeed.
You all know it's coming, but seriously folks, before the Dreamcast and original Playstation came out, what console's games didn't come out on a proprietary format?
When is this going to become a viable reality? I really hate knowing that I will have to replace my laptop (column of damaged pixels), because there is no justifiably-priced means to simply replace the screen.
Perhaps a market for aftermarket LCD screens could taqake advantage of the surplus.
You still haven't convinced me that there are in fact people looking at the code of all of these OSS projects. Just look at how long the Mozilla/Firefox vulnerability remained unpatched!
Slashdot Mirror
More accurately he's giving congress a chance to define marriage. Either way, it's not the the public's prerogative to impose the majority's definition of marriage upon all of our nation's religions. Hence the First Amendment.
"The way I see it and 80% of Arkansas and 71% of Louisiana voters voted that..."
...slavery is a justified means of sustaining the Southern economy? That was the sentiment once upon a time, but just because a lot of folks believe something, that doesn't make it right.
"It is immoral which means it degrades security"
That's perhaps the weakest argument against same-sex marriage I've ever heard, and that's saying a lot.
"George Bush's marriage amendment was a response to renegade judges."
I agree that judges in this country are out of control, but GWB's reaction was a vast overcompensation.
Overall, I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that it should not be up to the Government or the Majority to impose one definition of a religious institution. That thinking contradicts the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment.
I say leave the definition of marriage to the religions themselves, and eliminate all government policy involving marriage. You'll probably say that such a move would weaken the incentive for couples to marry. To pre-emptively counter that, I submit that people who marry for the financial benefits pose a much greater threat to the institution of marriage than people of the same sex who genuinely love each other.
Is your public school teaching that it is unacceptable to marry someone of the same sex? IANAL, but that sounds like grounds for a lawsuit.
Schools have a hard enough time teaching math, science, history, reading, etc. without trying to preach a certain moral ethos. If that's what's happening in your school, I'd take them to task for it.
...what business does government have in framing public policy around a religious institution?
The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
Who then is supposed to give a shit about information security if not management and IT? It's stuff like this that makes me very unsympathetic towards companies with virus problems.
Use of Tired Cliches: Check!
Arrogance: Check!
Rightious Indignity: Check!
Teen Angst: Check!
Hip-Sounding Paranoia: Check!
Rebellion Against "The Man": Check!
Thank you for verifying your age. You are indeed a teenager as you claim.
-Verisign
Why is it that so many Slashdotters piss and moan when any kind of system is released by commercial industry that isn't 100% flawless?
Now maybe I have it all wrong, but I'd say that when it comes to protecting children on the Internet (and yes, it's needed), this is a step in the right direction. Sure it has its flaws, but it's certainly better than nothing at all.
But it seems around here that if something isn't perfect right out of the gate, it's garbage (unless it's Open Source, in which case it gets free pass after free pass...).
I don't want my government to care about me. I simply want it to maintain an environment where I am free to achieve my own success or failure.
And at least the private sector has to compete for my money. Government just takes it.
Their answer has always been based on conservation over production. That's why there hasn't been a new power plant built in California in almost two decades.
Looking back on California's energy crisis a few years back, I think we can get a good idea of what a similar policy at a national level would do to this country.
Pay for what? What would they be buying? In this country, we expect to get something in return for our money. Taxation used simply as a means to redistribute wealth goes completely against this country's foundation of personal liberty.
My personal belief is that taxation and government involvement in peoples lives is inherantly an intrusion upon our liberties.
While a certain level of both is necessary to run a nation, but at what point do you believe they become an unacceptable burdon to a country's people?
Given that many Green Party ideals stem from increased government involvement, and would rely on higher levels of taxation to fund, please justify to us how such increases contribute to a free society.
Read all about it! Systems not properly administered and patched may be hazardous to your network's health!
Read the story now, pictures at eleven.
I guess you didn't get to the part of the article that read:
"Microsoft promised 'ongoing security updates' for all supported versions of Windows and IE."
You don't want to click on them. Especially at work.
I hope I don't lose my job over this...
Afterall, they're the ones signing their souls (and rights) away for promises of riches and fame. They don't deserve our pity, let alone our money.
Stop downloading their music, stop going to their concerts, and instead reward independent musicians for resisting the temptations of the RIAA etc.
You don't have it straight.
If you insist on using the tired and inappropriate car analogy, at least RTFA so you can get it close.
In this case, the security vulnerabilities, AKA factory recalls, would still be repaired for free by the dealership.
I also suggest you get your fucking story straight before you start spewing uninformed Microsoft hatred to the AG.
This has NOTHING to do with security patches. This is about feature upgrades, like the popup blocker.
Microsoft will still be releasing security patches for all versions of IE. At least RTFA before firing off knee-jerk ignorance.
Actually I'm voting Libertarian this year, but thanks for trying!
Besides all that, there never should have been a recount, even a partial recount, because the provision for one was not in Florida election law. By demanding a recount, Gore basically attempted to re-write Florida election law during the election.
Now we can all agree that things were pretty close in Florida, and that Bush hasn't exactly done a stellar job at the helm. But I'm not inclined to trust a party that tries to change election laws (let alone during an election) to engineer a desired outcome. Trivial interest in democracy indeed.
I stand corrected on the specifics, but my point is still the same. There is nothing new about game consoles using closed, proprietary media formats.
You all know it's coming, but seriously folks, before the Dreamcast and original Playstation came out, what console's games didn't come out on a proprietary format?
What "stolen" election are you refering to? The certified results in Florida, after all the recounts were completed, indicate Bush won by 537 votes.
So in other words, the anti-Bush crowd are already making excuses for if Kerry loses the election?
Are you that blind to the possibility of Bush winning legitimately? In case you hadn't noticed, you guys don't exactly have a solid candidate either.
Frankly I think they both suck, but I suspect only one side would make accusations of impropriety should they lose.
When is this going to become a viable reality? I really hate knowing that I will have to replace my laptop (column of damaged pixels), because there is no justifiably-priced means to simply replace the screen.
Perhaps a market for aftermarket LCD screens could taqake advantage of the surplus.
Nope, that's punishment! The Justice Department wasn't set up to prevent crime. It was set up to deal with people who commit them.
Think again.
You still haven't convinced me that there are in fact people looking at the code of all of these OSS projects. Just look at how long the Mozilla/Firefox vulnerability remained unpatched!