They can offer incensitive to move big downloads at night, when the network is not used. They just have to put a data usage cap during peak time.
How is that significantly different than simply throttling the P2P while the VoIP is requiring bandwidth? You'd rather have a permanent cap "during peak time" than fully open transport except in certain circumstances?
And how does raising the price "incensitive" anyone to do their work at night? I'd say it means "I'm paying more, I expect more."
When the network is congested, it like any other shortage means the price is too low, at least at that time of day. Because that's so easy to fix, there's really no need to prioritize packets.
I assume your easy fix is to simply increase the price. How does this provide more bandwidth? Do you think that people who are paying MORE for their internet will think "I need to use it less"?p.
Then it would no longer be "neutral", would it?
That's kinda like the whole issue, they are throttling one type of traffic and prioritizing others.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with prioritizing one KIND of traffic, it has to do with prioritizing SOURCES -- as in "Rogers VoIP services get priority over Skype and Vonage...", or "Rogers streaming video gets priority over Netflix".
Throttling P2P and other non-realtime data so that real-time (VoIP, e.g.) can get through is not violating net neutrality. It's network planning and is part of the IP.
Why should VOIP or any other web service get priority? What makes their usage more worthy of the bandwidth?
VoIP is not a "web service". VoIP should get priority because when bandwith is limited it needs it for the service to work. Your P2P will handle delays in packets getting through. It doesn't care. VoIP does because people do.
I use only 1GB P2P/month, and you use only 1GB VoIP/month. We both have no other traffic.
Why should you get priority over me?
Because his application is time-dependent and yours is not. If his application can't get packets through for thirty seconds, the connection is as good as dead. If you can't get packets through for thirty seconds, you probably don't even notice, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference.
Until I bust my usage cap, I should be able to do what I want without being throttled.
And the hell with anyone else and what they have paid to do. Yes, I know, the bad guy is the cable company that doesn't provide enough bandwidth so that every customer can get full throughput simultaneously. Because of that, you feel no compulsion to let someone who is doing real-time things get theirs done and over while yours can lag a bit and make no difference.
Suddenly all these priviledged pre-madona's boarding charter and private jets would change the law real quick.
Yeah, the idiotic law that would require TSA screening on charter and private flights would be changed. If you wanted to find a way to destroy the general aviation industry in this country, that would be the law to do it.
The bus driver, you and the cab driver are private citizens and are committing crimes if you physically restrain someone. And no, not paying for a service and a private citizen not providing that service -- even one representing a common carrier or public transit provider -- is not the same thing.
Yes, according to your logic, being prevented from doing something is "arrest", because someone was "restrained" from doing it. TSA didn't let him through a security checkpoint because he wouldn't comply with the requirements to pass. That's being delayed, and that's following the same rules that are being applied to every other person of lesser quality who tries to pass.
But that's not being arrested. In fact, he was allowed to walk away, something that most people in that situation would not have been allowed to do. He got a free pass, and you're trying to claim he was treated worse than everyone else.
You've fallen hook, line, and sinker for this publicity stunt.
Your snarky comment about Congress being one of the main threats to our Constitution was poorly worded.
I said that the standard/. OPINION was that congress is a threat. I pointed out that the fact that someone said that a congressman was not a threat was contradictory to that opinion. I didn't say they were, in fact, a threat. Please look up the words you don't understand.
"Arrest" is legally defined to mean restraint under color of authority. He was restrained under color of authority from utilizing a common carrier.
That's just nonsense. Using that logic, he wouldn't have to pay bus fare because the bus company would be "arresting" him if they didn't let him on without paying. The same for a cab company. The same for YOU, if he demanded to use your car to get to congress. You'd be "arresting" him because you didn't let him use your car.
He wasn't arrested, any more than anyone else who passed through that screening line was arrested by the process. They are delayed, perhaps, but "delay" isn't arrest, any more than the delay you face when you are stopped by a traffic cop is an "arrest".
The fact that they later allowed him passage and he was able to book a different flight has no bearing on their original action.
The fact he wasn't arrested has every bearing on the matter.
Exactly what do you propose replacing Congress with and when will you have a draft of your Constitutional Amendment available for review?
You must've failed civics class. Rights CANNOT be waived.
You must have failed civics class. Of course rights can be waived. You can waive your forth amendment right against search by simply saying "yes" when a cop asks you if they can search your vehicle. You can waive your fifth amendment right against self incrimination by simply answering a self-incriminating question.
Where did you get the moronic idea that you cannot waive a right? If your civics class taught you that, then you must have gone to a cracker-jack school. And I mean that literally. It came out of a box of Cracker Jacks.
Regardless, the TSA should be exempting Representatives and Senators due to that clause in the Constitution.
Which "that clause" might you be referring to? The one regarding arrest? Since this wasn't an arrest, that clause doesn't apply. Do you have something more on point? Is there a clause that says that congressmen are not subject to the same laws that they apply to the rest of us? Not even the "arrest" clause makes them exempt, it just delays their arrest until after the congressional session is over.
All jokes aside, those people are not in any way remotely a threat to an aircraft or the other people on board.
You must have karma to burn, since the standard/. opinion is that congress is one part of a three part attack on our constitutional rights and freedoms. How can that not be seen as a threat, remote or direct, to the people on board an aircraft?
The right time to stand up for your rights is before you've waived them. Yes, walking past the sign that says "anyone passing this point is subject to search" is waiving his fourth amendment rights.
It would be a lot more interesting if this wasn't someone who felt he had special privileges by being a member of congress. Yawn. Member of congress claims specials privileges. Film at 11.
But if you listen to the interview, she makes, what I see, a compelling point: these devices have WiFi connections.
What is fascinating about this all is that the FCC has just approved the use of low power radio-based medical devices on a tertiary basis (meaning, third in line for the frequencies) in the 440MHz amateur band (where the US government is a primary and amateurs secondary).
In other words, these medical devices must cause no interference to the other licensed users, and must ACCEPT INTERFERENCE from them. What is most amazing is that the FCC knows that a large number, if not majority, of the amateur users in this band are transient. That is, they are HT or mobile. They move around. Someone can walk into a hospital tomorrow with a radio on his belt and cause interference to every device in the building. Legally. I can park outside the building and dump 100W into the air, right on top of these devices. I have a radio system on top OF A HOSPITAL that radiates about 600W ERP.
Seems kind of silly to put a new kind of medical device into such an environment, but the FCC did it. Now, what were you saying about dangers of having a WiFi interface on a pacemaker?
We know humans have influenced it. It's pretty simple, really.
If you think the global weather system is "pretty simple", you need to get out more. The fact is that correlation isn't proof of causation, and most scientists would never accept such "proof" in their own fields, but are expected to accept it from climate scientists.
Until you show that a system that differs only in the amount of CO2 released by humans but is otherwise identical does NOT show the temperature increases, you've tied your wagon to the correlation proof. Otherwise, any of the other differences between the two systems could be the cause or a mitigating factor.
And this is the real crux of the issue. The only way we're going to be able to support 9+ billion people on this planet is if we keep things running pretty much the way it is now.
I think the point being made is that if it happened without us being here at all, there must be causes that we have no control over. If there are causes that we cannot control, it would be folly to waste the time and money trying to control what we cannot.
Xerxes ordered his slaves to whip the waves to keep the waves from coming in. He was trying to control something he couldn't in a way that wasted time and energy and probably lives. People who ignored the fact that the sand spit they were building million dollar houses on wasn't there 100 years ago are demanding that something "be done" to keep the spit from eroding today.
As a society, humans are very good at seeing "how things are today" and leaping to "this is how they should always be", even if that means "doing something that doesn't change what's happening".
Except one implies the person themselves will have input into the discussion, one implies they will not. Rather crucial difference, that.
Not really. "Input into the matter" doesn't mean your input changes anything.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting and deciding to eat the sheep for dinner. Consensus is deciding to eat only half the sheep. In both cases, the sheep had "input into the discussion", in both cases the eventual result is the same as if it didn't.
The crucial part is that there is some group that decides if giving someone medical treatment to keep them alive is worth the cost.
Swedish is the only one listed that I can not recall having ever heard any sort of slur in the past 44 years.
You've never talked to someone from Norway then, have you?
I knew two guys who worked together, one Swedish, the other Norweign. Each took great pleasure in teaching me slurs regarding the other. Unfortunately, I don't remember any of them, except maybe, "Norsk fawn", I think it was.
While you are correct that some atheists assert there is no god, it is not a requirement.
Yes, actually, it is.
A "theist" believes there is a God. Adding the 'a' prefix makes it the opposite. An "atheist", then, believes there is no God.
For me, it's more of the null hypothesis; i.e. barring evidence in favor of the existence of gods, I'm operating under the assumption that there aren't any. There's no assertion there.
That assumption is, indeed, an assertion, when it pops out as the result of applying the scientific method to God. That's as silly a thing to do as to apply religious principles to science, but you are free to do it.
As for why an atheist is likely to have a better vantage point on the issue of what constitutes a religion - quite a few atheists were religionists for a large part of their lives, born and raised within a variety of faiths they have plenty of experience with the dimensions of religiosity.
An interesting argument. An athiest has a better view of religion because he probably grew up within one and then abandoned it, over someone who probably grew up within one and hasn't.
I think the term is "confirmation bias". "I understand religion better than you do because I once had it and now know it is bunk, while you haven't gotten smart enough to know it is bunk."
If marriage is a religious institution, why are all marriages not civil unions in the eyes of the law? The fact that they're not seems like a preference towards the religious institution.
Huh? They're not civil unions? I don't know which country you are talking about, but in the USA marriage includes the civil union part along with the religious baggage. I can't speak for marriage in other countries.
How would you feel if marriage was forever stricken from the record and henceforth all marriages were legally civil unions in the eyes of the law,...
I'd feel you were a moron who is trying to push your secular concept of marriage onto everyone else for no reason other than to be insulting to them. They already are civil unions (if not in a legally defined way then in the normal definition of the term), so where is your "henceforth" coming from?
Most of the states (and the federal government) do not even recognize civil unions.
Then they should be changed so they do.
Clearly there is a civil rights issue here.
No. Not so clearly. But don't keep arguing with me when I support the (stated) goal of gaining legal status for couples who have no interest in the religious parts of the process. All you are going to do is piss off someone who supports what you want.
I "marry" two joints together when I am working in my shop, did I just confer some religious meaning to the glue?
Now you're just being dense. No other word in the english language has two meanings?
Besides, why are Christians even legally be able to divorce if the act in itself is so sacred?
Well, you don't understand the difference between secular law and theology, then.
(I haven't heard of anyone excommunicated lately over it, anyway)
Well, some churches don't "excommunicate" people for not following every rule. Some churches let the judgement take place later on. And some churches actually do consider the matter to be serious enough to determine membership status. However, the more serious part is not the divorce itself, but any subsequent attempts at another marriage. While the state is open-minded enough to say "you're not married anymore", according to God's rules you still are, even if you're not living together.
If I ignore all the teachings but the above quoted verse, am I still a Christian?
Given the difficulty of knowing what "the above quoted verse" applies to (because of/.'s display), I'm going to assume you mean the one about giving your kids to the elders so they can be stoned. The answer is "no".
Is there a certain percentage of the bible I must follow and believe in order to call myself that, and who makes that determination?
Yes, and God.
Don't get me wrong, I have a general disdain for all religion,...
If I say, "Hey, that Christ guy was pretty cool, he really seems like he loved his fellow man" but don't believe in God, or Christ's divinity, or any of the other tenets of the religion, am I a Christian?
No. You cannot believe him if you don't believe he is what he said he is. You can, however, believe him and believe what he says even if you don't always manage to do it.
How does a Christian ignore the whole...
By understanding that we are living under grace and not the law. A major change from the old days when the priests had to make rules to cover every possible way to sin because committing one was punishable and it was a Good Thing to let people know what they were ahead of time.
... why the fuck is the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman!!!!!!" think so fucking important...
Yes, why is it? If all you are looking for is a legal certificate that gives you legal rights (next of kin, etc) why does it have to be called "marriage"? What does a civil union not give you that marriage does, other than a chance to be insulting to people and push your beliefs onto them? What is most insulting is the flip-flop when those who argue that a "marriage certificate is just a piece of paper, why can't we have one, too?" then try "a marriage certificate is important so we can have joint legal rights and prove to the world our devotion", hoping something sticks. Legal rights can be achieved without a marriage certificate, and you can stand up all you want and pronounce in front of your friends and family your eternal(?) devotion without one.
"Responsible" is not a term that most people would use to describe the press around the time of the passage of the Constitution.
Then it is a good thing I wasn't trying to describe any specific instance of the press. This does not change the fact that the founding fathers had a notion of what was required to have oversight on the federal system they were creating, and something with constitutional guarantees of freedom to do that job is what they intended.
...but don't project your modern notions on historical figures in a nationalistic appeal to the supposed sagacity of the Founding Fathers.
No projection necessary. They were pretty smart folks. Smarter than modern whippersnappers want to give them credit for.
and rights which we think inhere to Internet access. We know it's a good idea,...
You think it's a good idea. Don't project your opinions onto others.
In the USA, they are liable for large statutory fines. The fact that is no DRM does not prevent me from seeking legal remedies.
If this was an effective legal remedy, then it would be enough to deal with the problem. **AA would be suing a lot of people for copyright infringement using this remedy and be making lots of money. The problem is that "exists" and "effective" are two different words.
Freedom of the press is specified in the first amendment specifically because it was the method of exercising free speech beyond the reach of your voice.
Incorrect. Freedom of the press was guaranteed because a responsible press is a requirement for an informed electorate. They were intended to be a watchdog on the government that the remainder of the document created. This is why they are sometimes refered to as "The Fourth Column". The first three being the three official branches of the government.
It specifically refers to the device, the printing press,...
No, it doesn't. It refers to "freedom of... the press". "The press" is not a reference to a specific device, it is a reference to the job and function of those who report the news. It makes no distinction at all regarding the physical medium that is used by the press to communicate.
That concept of freedom of the press would equally apply to internet access as it is the modern medium of mass communication.
Since the first amendment has nothing to do with any specific medium, this argument is false. "The press" is not the same as "medium of mass communication". You're using the wrong clauses to argue your case.
They have lowered the value of the service that they offer me, for no benefit.
For no benefit to you.
They see a great deal of benefit. It fulfills the contractual conditions required for them to be able to sell the movie studio's products.
Which is worse -- for them? Not being able to sell a new blockbuster movie to anyone, or being able to sell it to everyone and YOU can't watch it? We know what you think, but there are two parties to every contract, and their thoughts on the matter do count.
Pass a law that says DRM XOR Copyright. If you, or your authorised distributors, use DRM, then you don't get any protection from copyright.
So then there is no legal remedy for them if they use DRM and someone cracks it and starts handing out their product for free, and no effective legal remedy if they don't even try to stop copying? Plus they get the a **AA kind of reputation if they don't do DRM but do try to chase down copyright violations? You're trying to force content providers into a lose-lose situation.
If you object to them using DRM, don't buy their product.
It's borders are not defined by the latitude and longitude lines, but by the markers set by the surveying team which attempted to follow the latitudes and longitudes.
Further, the actual lat and lon lines depend on which datum one uses for the measurement. WGS84 and NAD27 are different. Not by much, but enough.
Slashdot Mirror
They can offer incensitive to move big downloads at night, when the network is not used. They just have to put a data usage cap during peak time.
How is that significantly different than simply throttling the P2P while the VoIP is requiring bandwidth? You'd rather have a permanent cap "during peak time" than fully open transport except in certain circumstances?
And how does raising the price "incensitive" anyone to do their work at night? I'd say it means "I'm paying more, I expect more."
When the network is congested, it like any other shortage means the price is too low, at least at that time of day. Because that's so easy to fix, there's really no need to prioritize packets.
I assume your easy fix is to simply increase the price. How does this provide more bandwidth? Do you think that people who are paying MORE for their internet will think "I need to use it less"?p.
Then it would no longer be "neutral", would it? That's kinda like the whole issue, they are throttling one type of traffic and prioritizing others.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with prioritizing one KIND of traffic, it has to do with prioritizing SOURCES -- as in "Rogers VoIP services get priority over Skype and Vonage...", or "Rogers streaming video gets priority over Netflix".
Throttling P2P and other non-realtime data so that real-time (VoIP, e.g.) can get through is not violating net neutrality. It's network planning and is part of the IP.
Why should VOIP or any other web service get priority? What makes their usage more worthy of the bandwidth?
VoIP is not a "web service". VoIP should get priority because when bandwith is limited it needs it for the service to work. Your P2P will handle delays in packets getting through. It doesn't care. VoIP does because people do.
I use only 1GB P2P/month, and you use only 1GB VoIP/month. We both have no other traffic. Why should you get priority over me?
Because his application is time-dependent and yours is not. If his application can't get packets through for thirty seconds, the connection is as good as dead. If you can't get packets through for thirty seconds, you probably don't even notice, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference.
Until I bust my usage cap, I should be able to do what I want without being throttled.
And the hell with anyone else and what they have paid to do. Yes, I know, the bad guy is the cable company that doesn't provide enough bandwidth so that every customer can get full throughput simultaneously. Because of that, you feel no compulsion to let someone who is doing real-time things get theirs done and over while yours can lag a bit and make no difference.
Suddenly all these priviledged pre-madona's boarding charter and private jets would change the law real quick.
Yeah, the idiotic law that would require TSA screening on charter and private flights would be changed. If you wanted to find a way to destroy the general aviation industry in this country, that would be the law to do it.
The bus driver, you and the cab driver are private citizens and are committing crimes if you physically restrain someone. And no, not paying for a service and a private citizen not providing that service -- even one representing a common carrier or public transit provider -- is not the same thing.
Yes, according to your logic, being prevented from doing something is "arrest", because someone was "restrained" from doing it. TSA didn't let him through a security checkpoint because he wouldn't comply with the requirements to pass. That's being delayed, and that's following the same rules that are being applied to every other person of lesser quality who tries to pass.
But that's not being arrested. In fact, he was allowed to walk away, something that most people in that situation would not have been allowed to do. He got a free pass, and you're trying to claim he was treated worse than everyone else.
You've fallen hook, line, and sinker for this publicity stunt.
Your snarky comment about Congress being one of the main threats to our Constitution was poorly worded.
I said that the standard /. OPINION was that congress is a threat. I pointed out that the fact that someone said that a congressman was not a threat was contradictory to that opinion. I didn't say they were, in fact, a threat. Please look up the words you don't understand.
"Arrest" is legally defined to mean restraint under color of authority. He was restrained under color of authority from utilizing a common carrier.
That's just nonsense. Using that logic, he wouldn't have to pay bus fare because the bus company would be "arresting" him if they didn't let him on without paying. The same for a cab company. The same for YOU, if he demanded to use your car to get to congress. You'd be "arresting" him because you didn't let him use your car.
He wasn't arrested, any more than anyone else who passed through that screening line was arrested by the process. They are delayed, perhaps, but "delay" isn't arrest, any more than the delay you face when you are stopped by a traffic cop is an "arrest".
The fact that they later allowed him passage and he was able to book a different flight has no bearing on their original action.
The fact he wasn't arrested has every bearing on the matter.
Exactly what do you propose replacing Congress with and when will you have a draft of your Constitutional Amendment available for review?
You have nothing to say but nonsense, do you?
You must've failed civics class. Rights CANNOT be waived.
You must have failed civics class. Of course rights can be waived. You can waive your forth amendment right against search by simply saying "yes" when a cop asks you if they can search your vehicle. You can waive your fifth amendment right against self incrimination by simply answering a self-incriminating question.
Where did you get the moronic idea that you cannot waive a right? If your civics class taught you that, then you must have gone to a cracker-jack school. And I mean that literally. It came out of a box of Cracker Jacks.
Regardless, the TSA should be exempting Representatives and Senators due to that clause in the Constitution.
Which "that clause" might you be referring to? The one regarding arrest? Since this wasn't an arrest, that clause doesn't apply. Do you have something more on point? Is there a clause that says that congressmen are not subject to the same laws that they apply to the rest of us? Not even the "arrest" clause makes them exempt, it just delays their arrest until after the congressional session is over.
All jokes aside, those people are not in any way remotely a threat to an aircraft or the other people on board.
You must have karma to burn, since the standard /. opinion is that congress is one part of a three part attack on our constitutional rights and freedoms. How can that not be seen as a threat, remote or direct, to the people on board an aircraft?
Standing up for your Rights is NOT "weird".
The right time to stand up for your rights is before you've waived them. Yes, walking past the sign that says "anyone passing this point is subject to search" is waiving his fourth amendment rights.
It would be a lot more interesting if this wasn't someone who felt he had special privileges by being a member of congress. Yawn. Member of congress claims specials privileges. Film at 11.
But if you listen to the interview, she makes, what I see, a compelling point: these devices have WiFi connections.
What is fascinating about this all is that the FCC has just approved the use of low power radio-based medical devices on a tertiary basis (meaning, third in line for the frequencies) in the 440MHz amateur band (where the US government is a primary and amateurs secondary).
In other words, these medical devices must cause no interference to the other licensed users, and must ACCEPT INTERFERENCE from them. What is most amazing is that the FCC knows that a large number, if not majority, of the amateur users in this band are transient. That is, they are HT or mobile. They move around. Someone can walk into a hospital tomorrow with a radio on his belt and cause interference to every device in the building. Legally. I can park outside the building and dump 100W into the air, right on top of these devices. I have a radio system on top OF A HOSPITAL that radiates about 600W ERP.
Seems kind of silly to put a new kind of medical device into such an environment, but the FCC did it. Now, what were you saying about dangers of having a WiFi interface on a pacemaker?
We know humans have influenced it. It's pretty simple, really.
If you think the global weather system is "pretty simple", you need to get out more. The fact is that correlation isn't proof of causation, and most scientists would never accept such "proof" in their own fields, but are expected to accept it from climate scientists.
Until you show that a system that differs only in the amount of CO2 released by humans but is otherwise identical does NOT show the temperature increases, you've tied your wagon to the correlation proof. Otherwise, any of the other differences between the two systems could be the cause or a mitigating factor.
And this is the real crux of the issue. The only way we're going to be able to support 9+ billion people on this planet is if we keep things running pretty much the way it is now.
I think the point being made is that if it happened without us being here at all, there must be causes that we have no control over. If there are causes that we cannot control, it would be folly to waste the time and money trying to control what we cannot.
Xerxes ordered his slaves to whip the waves to keep the waves from coming in. He was trying to control something he couldn't in a way that wasted time and energy and probably lives. People who ignored the fact that the sand spit they were building million dollar houses on wasn't there 100 years ago are demanding that something "be done" to keep the spit from eroding today.
As a society, humans are very good at seeing "how things are today" and leaping to "this is how they should always be", even if that means "doing something that doesn't change what's happening".
Except one implies the person themselves will have input into the discussion, one implies they will not. Rather crucial difference, that.
Not really. "Input into the matter" doesn't mean your input changes anything.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting and deciding to eat the sheep for dinner. Consensus is deciding to eat only half the sheep. In both cases, the sheep had "input into the discussion", in both cases the eventual result is the same as if it didn't.
The crucial part is that there is some group that decides if giving someone medical treatment to keep them alive is worth the cost.
Swedish is the only one listed that I can not recall having ever heard any sort of slur in the past 44 years.
You've never talked to someone from Norway then, have you?
I knew two guys who worked together, one Swedish, the other Norweign. Each took great pleasure in teaching me slurs regarding the other. Unfortunately, I don't remember any of them, except maybe, "Norsk fawn", I think it was.
While you are correct that some atheists assert there is no god, it is not a requirement.
Yes, actually, it is.
A "theist" believes there is a God. Adding the 'a' prefix makes it the opposite. An "atheist", then, believes there is no God.
For me, it's more of the null hypothesis; i.e. barring evidence in favor of the existence of gods, I'm operating under the assumption that there aren't any. There's no assertion there.
That assumption is, indeed, an assertion, when it pops out as the result of applying the scientific method to God. That's as silly a thing to do as to apply religious principles to science, but you are free to do it.
As for why an atheist is likely to have a better vantage point on the issue of what constitutes a religion - quite a few atheists were religionists for a large part of their lives, born and raised within a variety of faiths they have plenty of experience with the dimensions of religiosity.
An interesting argument. An athiest has a better view of religion because he probably grew up within one and then abandoned it, over someone who probably grew up within one and hasn't.
I think the term is "confirmation bias". "I understand religion better than you do because I once had it and now know it is bunk, while you haven't gotten smart enough to know it is bunk."
If marriage is a religious institution, why are all marriages not civil unions in the eyes of the law? The fact that they're not seems like a preference towards the religious institution.
Huh? They're not civil unions? I don't know which country you are talking about, but in the USA marriage includes the civil union part along with the religious baggage. I can't speak for marriage in other countries.
How would you feel if marriage was forever stricken from the record and henceforth all marriages were legally civil unions in the eyes of the law,...
I'd feel you were a moron who is trying to push your secular concept of marriage onto everyone else for no reason other than to be insulting to them. They already are civil unions (if not in a legally defined way then in the normal definition of the term), so where is your "henceforth" coming from?
Most of the states (and the federal government) do not even recognize civil unions.
Then they should be changed so they do.
Clearly there is a civil rights issue here.
No. Not so clearly. But don't keep arguing with me when I support the (stated) goal of gaining legal status for couples who have no interest in the religious parts of the process. All you are going to do is piss off someone who supports what you want.
I "marry" two joints together when I am working in my shop, did I just confer some religious meaning to the glue?
Now you're just being dense. No other word in the english language has two meanings?
Besides, why are Christians even legally be able to divorce if the act in itself is so sacred?
Well, you don't understand the difference between secular law and theology, then.
(I haven't heard of anyone excommunicated lately over it, anyway)
Well, some churches don't "excommunicate" people for not following every rule. Some churches let the judgement take place later on. And some churches actually do consider the matter to be serious enough to determine membership status. However, the more serious part is not the divorce itself, but any subsequent attempts at another marriage. While the state is open-minded enough to say "you're not married anymore", according to God's rules you still are, even if you're not living together.
If I ignore all the teachings but the above quoted verse, am I still a Christian?
Given the difficulty of knowing what "the above quoted verse" applies to (because of /.'s display), I'm going to assume you mean the one about giving your kids to the elders so they can be stoned. The answer is "no".
Is there a certain percentage of the bible I must follow and believe in order to call myself that, and who makes that determination?
Yes, and God.
Don't get me wrong, I have a general disdain for all religion,...
You hide it very well.
If I say, "Hey, that Christ guy was pretty cool, he really seems like he loved his fellow man" but don't believe in God, or Christ's divinity, or any of the other tenets of the religion, am I a Christian?
No. You cannot believe him if you don't believe he is what he said he is. You can, however, believe him and believe what he says even if you don't always manage to do it.
How does a Christian ignore the whole ...
By understanding that we are living under grace and not the law. A major change from the old days when the priests had to make rules to cover every possible way to sin because committing one was punishable and it was a Good Thing to let people know what they were ahead of time.
... why the fuck is the whole "marriage is between a man and a woman!!!!!!" think so fucking important ...
Yes, why is it? If all you are looking for is a legal certificate that gives you legal rights (next of kin, etc) why does it have to be called "marriage"? What does a civil union not give you that marriage does, other than a chance to be insulting to people and push your beliefs onto them? What is most insulting is the flip-flop when those who argue that a "marriage certificate is just a piece of paper, why can't we have one, too?" then try "a marriage certificate is important so we can have joint legal rights and prove to the world our devotion", hoping something sticks. Legal rights can be achieved without a marriage certificate, and you can stand up all you want and pronounce in front of your friends and family your eternal(?) devotion without one.
"Responsible" is not a term that most people would use to describe the press around the time of the passage of the Constitution.
Then it is a good thing I wasn't trying to describe any specific instance of the press. This does not change the fact that the founding fathers had a notion of what was required to have oversight on the federal system they were creating, and something with constitutional guarantees of freedom to do that job is what they intended.
...but don't project your modern notions on historical figures in a nationalistic appeal to the supposed sagacity of the Founding Fathers.
No projection necessary. They were pretty smart folks. Smarter than modern whippersnappers want to give them credit for.
and rights which we think inhere to Internet access. We know it's a good idea, ...
You think it's a good idea. Don't project your opinions onto others.
In the USA, they are liable for large statutory fines. The fact that is no DRM does not prevent me from seeking legal remedies.
If this was an effective legal remedy, then it would be enough to deal with the problem. **AA would be suing a lot of people for copyright infringement using this remedy and be making lots of money. The problem is that "exists" and "effective" are two different words.
Freedom of the press is specified in the first amendment specifically because it was the method of exercising free speech beyond the reach of your voice.
Incorrect. Freedom of the press was guaranteed because a responsible press is a requirement for an informed electorate. They were intended to be a watchdog on the government that the remainder of the document created. This is why they are sometimes refered to as "The Fourth Column". The first three being the three official branches of the government.
It specifically refers to the device, the printing press, ...
No, it doesn't. It refers to "freedom of ... the press". "The press" is not a reference to a specific device, it is a reference to the job and function of those who report the news. It makes no distinction at all regarding the physical medium that is used by the press to communicate.
That concept of freedom of the press would equally apply to internet access as it is the modern medium of mass communication.
Since the first amendment has nothing to do with any specific medium, this argument is false. "The press" is not the same as "medium of mass communication". You're using the wrong clauses to argue your case.
They have lowered the value of the service that they offer me, for no benefit.
For no benefit to you.
They see a great deal of benefit. It fulfills the contractual conditions required for them to be able to sell the movie studio's products.
Which is worse -- for them? Not being able to sell a new blockbuster movie to anyone, or being able to sell it to everyone and YOU can't watch it? We know what you think, but there are two parties to every contract, and their thoughts on the matter do count.
Pass a law that says DRM XOR Copyright. If you, or your authorised distributors, use DRM, then you don't get any protection from copyright.
So then there is no legal remedy for them if they use DRM and someone cracks it and starts handing out their product for free, and no effective legal remedy if they don't even try to stop copying? Plus they get the a **AA kind of reputation if they don't do DRM but do try to chase down copyright violations? You're trying to force content providers into a lose-lose situation.
If you object to them using DRM, don't buy their product.
It's borders are not defined by the latitude and longitude lines, but by the markers set by the surveying team which attempted to follow the latitudes and longitudes.
Further, the actual lat and lon lines depend on which datum one uses for the measurement. WGS84 and NAD27 are different. Not by much, but enough.