"The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games"
Why would you want to take the fun out of making video games? Did he not get the memo that happy employees means better products, better team spirit, better morale in the office etc etc etc ?
The (democratically elected, BTW) AG, in her professional opinion as, you know, an attorney, determined that the law was unconstitutional and refused to enforce it.
He, under oath, swore to enforce laws passed by her constituents. It isn't her job to determine where something in unconstitutional or not. People always complain around here about a theocracy and this sounds like a pure theocratical power grab by the AG. And yes, you can vote the AG out, eventually, but the AG in the case should be downright impeached for not upholding what he vowed to uphold.
Well, yes, there is always the potential for the abuse of elected (or appointed, however your AG works) power.
That was the meat of the decision: The Supremes carefully considered whether anyone was screwed, and decided that the people complaining had, in fact, not been screwed.*
The people complaining just wasnt about them bring *screwed but all the of the people of the state of california being *screwed as well. Why have an amendment that the people of california vote on that can so easily be refuted? That doesn;t seem like something the founding fathers would have wanted or approved of. On top of that the very same people (and a small group of people in question here that was sent to represent everyone else who voted for Prop 8.) can't even defend what was voted on because the AG refuses to enforce it? This just wasnt about harm to the 6 or 7 individuals before the court but to rest of the people of california and harm to amendment system as well.
As bjdevil said earlier, this is WRONG. He should be at least impeached. At least. And this is a BAD precedent. Next thing you know some other law will get passed and the AG will say, "hey i don't llke that law, *screw it!, I am not going to enforce it.
if they didnt have a sufficient interest then why were the group of citizens in question formed in the first place? What is the court now? Mind readers? They are all of sudden experts in determining whether people are 'genuinely' interested or not? Obviously someone was genuinely interested. And it wasnt the Attorney General, even though he swore to uphold the laws of the state of California. I dont think there is a clause in there that says that he doesnt have the obligation and oath to people of California to not argue in the peoples place if he doesnt like the law. As i stated earlier.. what does that do as precedent to future citizens? If your AG doesnt like the law, even though the people passed the law and the law is questioned in court, they have no right to defend said law if the AG doesnt do his duty? Thats dangerous. REALLY dangerous.
I see where the gay marriage ban in California will be overturned because the found that the people didnt have the right to appeal to a lower court. Why did the people do this? Because the AG refused to appeal because he didn't like the gay marriage ban. So what kind of precedent does this set? If the officials of the state don't appeal a ruling then the citizens are pretty much screwed? What kind of crap is that?
they (we as a whole) havent done anything about it because everyone is sitting at home, eating bon-bons, watching soap operas, jersey shore, dancing with the stars (while texting and playing on their other devices) and keeping up with kardashians without a care in the world about whats going on around them. Everyone will wake up tomorrow, go to work, mow the lawn, go shopping and pay bills and think about what other useless TV shows they will be watching without a care for anything else.
My twitter account, like all my others(like banking etc) are tied to my various gmail accounts, which are also two-factor authenticated. So in order to change my password for example on my twitter account, you would need to hack into my twitter account then hack into my gmail account(password + 2-factor auth.) to check the email so that you can change the password.
I don't know if this makes it more difficult or if i should hold out.
"An AT&T spokeswoman said the fee covers 'certain expenses, such as interconnection and cell-site rents and maintenance."
So my question is, is then why have you just now started to add this fee? Haven't you always had to pay for cell-site rents and maintenance? Simply adding the "surcharge" because you feel like it should be illegal.
there is no separation of state and religion. there is no such clause. not even the words "separation", "church" or "state".
the supreme court redefined what the meaning of the first amendment even means in that regard and had to look to a document outside of the confines of the constitution to even have something to go by(and they even got the intent of this phrase wrong). Even so, the document or paragraph by Jefferson regarding "separation of church & state" referred to a state Church - whereas all of Great Britain was under one denomination and they did not want that for American was one of the main reasons why they fled their old country to begin with.
"In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a letter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."
"The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ That wall must be kept high and impregnable." is the quote from the court in 1947 not taking into account the whole context of Jeffersons letter but only a small phrase for which they would coin all their rulings against, asserting for themselves what the Founders wanted without taking the full letter and context into consideration. Since then people have been programmed to believe that this phrase is in the constitution which it is not.
how does providing benefits or recognizing heterosexual marriage interfere with federal law? there is no federal law concerning marriage at all..and again marriage is not a right anyway. never has been, before states assembled and back even further than that.
thanks rossz, i was just ready to paste this - in hindsight should have earlier. the federal government at its base is there to defend against attack, provide for the general welfare and a few other things. DOMA really should have been an amendment to the constitution instead of just a federal law signed by a now defunct president. It doesnt really make sense for every state to accept every law from ever other state - although wiki does separate common law vs judgements in this regard(Full Faith & Credit)
very true. Panhandle(Pensacola, Destin, Orange Beach) vs. Tampa/Orlando/Sarasota/Miami is totally different. the later is a great combination of rural and city live where as the first option is basically more rural with the exception of some pretty nice beaches.
the way we disagree here is that the purpose of some priviledges/perks offer to married heterosexual couples come with "package deals"(children) no pun intended. The idea was, was that heterosexual couples would have kids that would grow up to be considerate, disciplined, well rounded, stable state citizens who would then provide, as I stated above, positive contributions when they grow up and get jobs and buy stuff/pay taxes.
The states are saying here, "hey we want to have stable children and children outside of a mother/father family unit have a better chance at becoming drug addicts, going to prison(costs the state taxpayers money), lower test scores(bad for states), more high school dropouts(bad for states), etc etc. This particular idea isnt limited to gay marriage though and we dont have to study this too deep to figure out that the states were on to something. You can see this clearly when parents divorce or children grow up either without a father or a mother that the child is at a higher risk of negative contributions to themselves and the states that they reside in. If a child grows up without any parents the chance of them growing up to be productive citizens are disastrously low.
Without going into this topic more deeply because i dont have more time, I think each state has every right to not accept marriage certificates from other states. I am not familiar with all the benefits that each state currently gives to heterosexual couples(other than $250 for burial and other things). So the question is, is it in the states best interest to allow adoptions of kids by a gay, a single mother, a single father etc because of some of the things I have already stated??
If the full faith and credit clause is such a big deal when Bill Clinton was ready to sign it in 1996, then how is it that the supreme court(or any lower court) didn't rule on it then and stop the law from going into action?
i dont know who are you agreeing/disagreeing with here but guns are mentioned in the constitution and thus SCOTUS can hear cases on it. marriage isnt mentioned at all like you said - thus my big response on marriage never being a right at all for anyone. The states provided a way to recognize heterosexual couples with perks, bonuses etc etc but the federal government never did institute such priviledge... so definitely that falls under the states rights.
As far as general civil rights, those are only fair game if those are in the constitution. People want to sue and have the supreme court hear arguments for "rights" spanning all disciplines that are not even mentioned in any of our documents and for the supreme court to rule (i.e. make precedent, make a new law out of clear blue sky) is and was never there intention/duty. If you want to create/amend something in the constitution for them to rule on - then *GASP* get some grass roots efforts together, talk to your congressman, go visit your local mayors/townfolk, and get the appropriate number of states and votes to change/amend to the constitution whatever it is that you seek. Then they can rule on that part of the law appropriately.
The case here in Florida revolves around privacy and everyone is expected to have privacy so maybe someone can link some constitutional writings that support appropriate search and seizure that is currently in the law.
First of all, marriage is NOT a right and never has been, even for heterosexuals. The individuals states have taken it upon themselves to allow, as a PRIVILEDGE, heterosexuals to marry legally within that state(by way of marriage certificates) and offers certain benefits within that marriage unit. The states long ago, realized that encouraging marriages between two people would be beneficial for the state because as nature would have it, a heterosexual union was the best chance for a stable environment to reproduce and raise up children who would yield future positive contributions to that state (get good jobs, pay state taxes, buy goods, etc) and then themselves get married and the cycle continues. So yes, it is a state issue, not a federal one.
DOMA was put into place as a way to keep states from recognizing any other states law regarding gay marriage. So Florida wouldnt be forced to recognize a couples gay marriage certificate from California. It doesnt stop California from deciding whether or not it wants gay marriage. I'm not sure why this even came into question. Of course California can define marriage differently. I dont think DOMA ever had in its language to prohibit individual states from defining marriage how they see fit.
The only part I didnt like about that whole California case was that the California Supreme court allowed by ruling to let the people vote on it, as long as they got enough signatures on the ballot, which they did. Then when voting time came, the majority ruled to have no gay marriage, which afterwards the same California supreme court said it was unconstitutional. Thats just odd but then again it is California.
The Supreme court shouldn't even be allowed to hear this case( and wasn't the original intent of duty of the supreme court), nor the case from California regarding gay marriage nor any other law that the relevant states supreme court has already ruled on. There is a REASON why each state has a supreme court. 7 black robes in Washington should not be overturning/hearing on individual state laws/rulings unless the founding papers of this great land specifically gave the Supreme Court the power to do so.
In this particular case, every state ought to have a ruling on this subject and be done with it instead of one court ruling for all.
Question To Providers: "Why can't I just pay for each individual program that i want to watch or opt to buy a seasonal package of shows/channels from you at a discounted price?
Providers: Well see the channels that we subsidize wouldn't last and go under.
Question to Providers: Why is that my problem?
Providers:........
so when my contract runs out on my android phone in April, can i go to Verizon and ask for my bill to be lowered by the amount i was paying for 2 years? What will they say?
yes but i didnt ask for the software and i dont want it. Are you telling me that it is now illegal to now want software that people want us to have?(uhhh license)http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/27/1541226/what-you-need-to-know-about-phone-unlocking?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=twitter#
pretty soon youll have a robot designing and building computers - but of course you will have to have programmers to write the code for those robots to do such a thing.
i am surprised that advertisers haven't gotten the fact that just because you put an ad in a paper you can assuredly say that that person will buy from you or whatever,. most people have tuned out ads completely. the same goes for tv advertising. how can you charge someone for ads when you cant give them hard numbers on exactly how many people are looking or viewing ads.
Slashdot Mirror
"The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games"
Why would you want to take the fun out of making video games? Did he not get the memo that happy employees means better products, better team spirit, better morale in the office etc etc etc ?
The (democratically elected, BTW) AG, in her professional opinion as, you know, an attorney, determined that the law was unconstitutional and refused to enforce it.
He, under oath, swore to enforce laws passed by her constituents. It isn't her job to determine where something in unconstitutional or not. People always complain around here about a theocracy and this sounds like a pure theocratical power grab by the AG. And yes, you can vote the AG out, eventually, but the AG in the case should be downright impeached for not upholding what he vowed to uphold.
Well, yes, there is always the potential for the abuse of elected (or appointed, however your AG works) power.
That was the meat of the decision: The Supremes carefully considered whether anyone was screwed, and decided that the people complaining had, in fact, not been screwed.*
The people complaining just wasnt about them bring *screwed but all the of the people of the state of california being *screwed as well. Why have an amendment that the people of california vote on that can so easily be refuted? That doesn;t seem like something the founding fathers would have wanted or approved of. On top of that the very same people (and a small group of people in question here that was sent to represent everyone else who voted for Prop 8.) can't even defend what was voted on because the AG refuses to enforce it? This just wasnt about harm to the 6 or 7 individuals before the court but to rest of the people of california and harm to amendment system as well.
As bjdevil said earlier, this is WRONG. He should be at least impeached. At least. And this is a BAD precedent. Next thing you know some other law will get passed and the AG will say, "hey i don't llke that law, *screw it!, I am not going to enforce it.
if they didnt have a sufficient interest then why were the group of citizens in question formed in the first place? What is the court now? Mind readers? They are all of sudden experts in determining whether people are 'genuinely' interested or not? Obviously someone was genuinely interested. And it wasnt the Attorney General, even though he swore to uphold the laws of the state of California. I dont think there is a clause in there that says that he doesnt have the obligation and oath to people of California to not argue in the peoples place if he doesnt like the law. As i stated earlier.. what does that do as precedent to future citizens? If your AG doesnt like the law, even though the people passed the law and the law is questioned in court, they have no right to defend said law if the AG doesnt do his duty? Thats dangerous. REALLY dangerous.
I see where the gay marriage ban in California will be overturned because the found that the people didnt have the right to appeal to a lower court. Why did the people do this? Because the AG refused to appeal because he didn't like the gay marriage ban. So what kind of precedent does this set? If the officials of the state don't appeal a ruling then the citizens are pretty much screwed? What kind of crap is that?
they (we as a whole) havent done anything about it because everyone is sitting at home, eating bon-bons, watching soap operas, jersey shore, dancing with the stars (while texting and playing on their other devices) and keeping up with kardashians without a care in the world about whats going on around them. Everyone will wake up tomorrow, go to work, mow the lawn, go shopping and pay bills and think about what other useless TV shows they will be watching without a care for anything else.
My twitter account, like all my others(like banking etc) are tied to my various gmail accounts, which are also two-factor authenticated. So in order to change my password for example on my twitter account, you would need to hack into my twitter account then hack into my gmail account(password + 2-factor auth.) to check the email so that you can change the password.
I don't know if this makes it more difficult or if i should hold out.
"An AT&T spokeswoman said the fee covers 'certain expenses, such as interconnection and cell-site rents and maintenance."
So my question is, is then why have you just now started to add this fee? Haven't you always had to pay for cell-site rents and maintenance? Simply adding the "surcharge" because you feel like it should be illegal.
there is no separation of state and religion. there is no such clause. not even the words "separation", "church" or "state". the supreme court redefined what the meaning of the first amendment even means in that regard and had to look to a document outside of the confines of the constitution to even have something to go by(and they even got the intent of this phrase wrong). Even so, the document or paragraph by Jefferson regarding "separation of church & state" referred to a state Church - whereas all of Great Britain was under one denomination and they did not want that for American was one of the main reasons why they fled their old country to begin with. "In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a letter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state." "The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ That wall must be kept high and impregnable." is the quote from the court in 1947 not taking into account the whole context of Jeffersons letter but only a small phrase for which they would coin all their rulings against, asserting for themselves what the Founders wanted without taking the full letter and context into consideration. Since then people have been programmed to believe that this phrase is in the constitution which it is not.
how does providing benefits or recognizing heterosexual marriage interfere with federal law? there is no federal law concerning marriage at all..and again marriage is not a right anyway. never has been, before states assembled and back even further than that.
thanks rossz, i was just ready to paste this - in hindsight should have earlier. the federal government at its base is there to defend against attack, provide for the general welfare and a few other things. DOMA really should have been an amendment to the constitution instead of just a federal law signed by a now defunct president. It doesnt really make sense for every state to accept every law from ever other state - although wiki does separate common law vs judgements in this regard(Full Faith & Credit)
very true. Panhandle(Pensacola, Destin, Orange Beach) vs. Tampa/Orlando/Sarasota/Miami is totally different. the later is a great combination of rural and city live where as the first option is basically more rural with the exception of some pretty nice beaches.
the way we disagree here is that the purpose of some priviledges/perks offer to married heterosexual couples come with "package deals"(children) no pun intended. The idea was, was that heterosexual couples would have kids that would grow up to be considerate, disciplined, well rounded, stable state citizens who would then provide, as I stated above, positive contributions when they grow up and get jobs and buy stuff/pay taxes. The states are saying here, "hey we want to have stable children and children outside of a mother/father family unit have a better chance at becoming drug addicts, going to prison(costs the state taxpayers money), lower test scores(bad for states), more high school dropouts(bad for states), etc etc. This particular idea isnt limited to gay marriage though and we dont have to study this too deep to figure out that the states were on to something. You can see this clearly when parents divorce or children grow up either without a father or a mother that the child is at a higher risk of negative contributions to themselves and the states that they reside in. If a child grows up without any parents the chance of them growing up to be productive citizens are disastrously low. Without going into this topic more deeply because i dont have more time, I think each state has every right to not accept marriage certificates from other states. I am not familiar with all the benefits that each state currently gives to heterosexual couples(other than $250 for burial and other things). So the question is, is it in the states best interest to allow adoptions of kids by a gay, a single mother, a single father etc because of some of the things I have already stated??
If the full faith and credit clause is such a big deal when Bill Clinton was ready to sign it in 1996, then how is it that the supreme court(or any lower court) didn't rule on it then and stop the law from going into action?
i dont know who are you agreeing/disagreeing with here but guns are mentioned in the constitution and thus SCOTUS can hear cases on it. marriage isnt mentioned at all like you said - thus my big response on marriage never being a right at all for anyone. The states provided a way to recognize heterosexual couples with perks, bonuses etc etc but the federal government never did institute such priviledge... so definitely that falls under the states rights. As far as general civil rights, those are only fair game if those are in the constitution. People want to sue and have the supreme court hear arguments for "rights" spanning all disciplines that are not even mentioned in any of our documents and for the supreme court to rule (i.e. make precedent, make a new law out of clear blue sky) is and was never there intention/duty. If you want to create/amend something in the constitution for them to rule on - then *GASP* get some grass roots efforts together, talk to your congressman, go visit your local mayors/townfolk, and get the appropriate number of states and votes to change/amend to the constitution whatever it is that you seek. Then they can rule on that part of the law appropriately. The case here in Florida revolves around privacy and everyone is expected to have privacy so maybe someone can link some constitutional writings that support appropriate search and seizure that is currently in the law.
First of all, marriage is NOT a right and never has been, even for heterosexuals. The individuals states have taken it upon themselves to allow, as a PRIVILEDGE, heterosexuals to marry legally within that state(by way of marriage certificates) and offers certain benefits within that marriage unit. The states long ago, realized that encouraging marriages between two people would be beneficial for the state because as nature would have it, a heterosexual union was the best chance for a stable environment to reproduce and raise up children who would yield future positive contributions to that state (get good jobs, pay state taxes, buy goods, etc) and then themselves get married and the cycle continues. So yes, it is a state issue, not a federal one.
DOMA was put into place as a way to keep states from recognizing any other states law regarding gay marriage. So Florida wouldnt be forced to recognize a couples gay marriage certificate from California. It doesnt stop California from deciding whether or not it wants gay marriage. I'm not sure why this even came into question. Of course California can define marriage differently. I dont think DOMA ever had in its language to prohibit individual states from defining marriage how they see fit.
The only part I didnt like about that whole California case was that the California Supreme court allowed by ruling to let the people vote on it, as long as they got enough signatures on the ballot, which they did. Then when voting time came, the majority ruled to have no gay marriage, which afterwards the same California supreme court said it was unconstitutional. Thats just odd but then again it is California.
Well, pretty good quality of life(lots of sunshine, some good schools, tons of fun stuff to do), no state taxes.... its not all that bad at all.
The Supreme court shouldn't even be allowed to hear this case( and wasn't the original intent of duty of the supreme court), nor the case from California regarding gay marriage nor any other law that the relevant states supreme court has already ruled on. There is a REASON why each state has a supreme court. 7 black robes in Washington should not be overturning/hearing on individual state laws/rulings unless the founding papers of this great land specifically gave the Supreme Court the power to do so. In this particular case, every state ought to have a ruling on this subject and be done with it instead of one court ruling for all.
firefox, adblock
Question To Providers: "Why can't I just pay for each individual program that i want to watch or opt to buy a seasonal package of shows/channels from you at a discounted price? ........
Providers: Well see the channels that we subsidize wouldn't last and go under.
Question to Providers: Why is that my problem?
Providers:
this is one of those 'take your controller out of the NES socket and throw it across the room' hard.
so when my contract runs out on my android phone in April, can i go to Verizon and ask for my bill to be lowered by the amount i was paying for 2 years? What will they say?
yes but i didnt ask for the software and i dont want it. Are you telling me that it is now illegal to now want software that people want us to have?(uhhh license)http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/27/1541226/what-you-need-to-know-about-phone-unlocking?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=twitter#
he also worked in updating KITT for the later seaons(i think starting in season 2).
pretty soon youll have a robot designing and building computers - but of course you will have to have programmers to write the code for those robots to do such a thing.
i am surprised that advertisers haven't gotten the fact that just because you put an ad in a paper you can assuredly say that that person will buy from you or whatever,. most people have tuned out ads completely. the same goes for tv advertising. how can you charge someone for ads when you cant give them hard numbers on exactly how many people are looking or viewing ads.