I routinely sign petitions that, even if I disagree with the premise, I believe deserves a fair airing in public. As a result of this action, I had a minor break with some of my gay friends who were very angry and wanted the names of all the signers.
This was the passage I read which led me to believe you signed the petition. If my inference was in error, then so be it. However, I do stand by my comment in that, people who signed this petition were actively signing a petition to take away the rights of others.
I don't feel it goes toward a broader reading, especially with the 14th Amendment, stating that the law applies to all people, equally, and that the States are just as bound by the BOR as the Federal Government.
Well, that kinda goes with being the Supreme Law of the Land. Granted, if a state thinks that Federal regulations don't go far enough, they can enact their own, tougher ones. Several states have done that with regards to minimum wage laws, and a few others have done that with regards to vehicle emissions laws.
A free society is one that is based on being able to freely express yourself without fear of intimidation, reprisals and death threats
...from the Government. Simply having freedom of speech does not give you freedom from criticism. If you were to post here that you believe that evolution is bunk and that gays should be shunned, then you'd still be free to express your opinion. You might, and on/., most likely, be ridiculed for it, but that is the price you pay for having the freedom to say what you want.
The thing is, petitions in this country aren't handled like that. A petition is generally started by a group of people who think something should become law or should not be law. A petition is seen as a statement that, we, the undersigned, feel a certain way, and want this to happen. The people who bring the petition don't usually feel that something should be decided by the people, but that the people bringing the petition want something to be changed in a particular way.
Even without this decision, a petition attacking the government is going to be delivered to... the government. And the government is still going to go through the process to verify the signatures on the petition.
Just because State's Rights is a priority, doesn't mean that a state can make a decision/law that is unconstitutional. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and no law enacted anywhere in the US can conflict with it.
While I agree that it might have just been easier on all parties to have a re-vote with a redesigned ballot, the question then was not one of fraud (did people who weren't eligible to vote do so), but of confusion (did this ballot indicate a vote for candidate A or B).
You signed the petition AGAINST gay marriage. You can rationalize it however you want, and believe you just feel that it deserves a "Fair hearing," but at the end of the day, you signed a petition AGAINST gay marriage. You signed a petition that was in favor of taking away or denying rights to a class of people.
I agree the bullying is wrong. However, because you are free to express your opinions does not make you free from criticism.
I believe it does. You aren't signing a petition on "Should the issue of gay marriage be on the ballot?" You're signing a petition either FOR or AGAINST gay marriage. You are throwing your support behind that cause.
I disagree with your theory behind signing petitions. Signing a petition is a show of support for the cause. You sign a petition FOR/AGAINST something, not a petition about a question. In context of the story, you're going to sign a petition AGAINST gay marriage, not a petition on gay marriage in general. And if you're not able to find enough people to sign the petition, enough people who believe what you do with regards to the topic at hand, then that's a sign that your position is not widely held enough to pass and become law.
Actually, there was a study that came out after that episode aired. When asked about it, Penn & Teller did admit that, yes, it was a credible study, and that secondhand smoke was not the bullshit they made it out to be.
Which I find cool because it shows that they are willing to admit when they are wrong, and are willing to change their ideas when new information becomes available.
FYI I'd never vote for gay marriage. Does that make you dislike me?
It doesn't make me a fan of yours. I don't care that you'd like to see government out of all marriages. The fact of the matter is, government is involved in heterosexual marriages, and will be for the foreseeable future. Getting government out of it completely may be a noble goal, but the end goal is one of equality under the law, and denying gay marriage does not accomplish that.
You mean Pulitzer Prize. Completely different thing. And that app was allowed in, even though it clearly violates the ToS you agree to when you're an iPhone dev (no political lampooning).
See, we'd kinda expect that behavior from the iPhone, and if I bought the iPhone, I wouldn't be too upset. However, we sided with Android, and agreed that was a risk, in exchange for not having them touch our phone after the fact.
If I know that the owner of a cafe down the street signed the petition opposing gay marriage, I would probably disagree with that, and would probably avoid his cafe. I might get others to do the same.
Let me see if I have your system correctly. There would be a finite number of patents that are valid at any one time. When a patent is invalidated, or simply expires, then its slot would be auctioned off. However, the people with patents pending wouldn't be the ones bidding, but rather large corporations. The corporations would get to decide what is patented, and if they win, they get the patent, not the person who submitted it. So a corporation could put up money to patent something, only to make sure it is never used.
Sounds even worse than the system we have now. At least in the system we have now, a small company has a shot at getting a patent without having to sell their invention to a large company.
The time to tell a user that something is trying to do something is when its trying to do something, not just when installing the app. There should be a way for the user to run an app, and then when it attempts to access private data, have the OS pop up a window alerting the user, and giving them the option to allow or deny access.
User rating is pretty easy to game, especially if you don't actually look at the comments. Last app I installed, there were dozens of spam comments, all giving the app 5 stars. And while the Report Malware feature is nice, it does require that said user was intelligent enough to notice the app was malware in the first place.
That's not the issue at all, you dolt. The issue is that Android doesn't prompt you before an app attempts to use the services. On the iPhone, you are prompted before it attempts to use a service, and then you can tell it to either allow or deny access. Once chosen, it does remember your choice, but you can change it at any time through the Settings menu.
I believe on the iPhone, you are prompted before the app attempts to use the service, and you are given the ability to allow or deny it access. This is also something you are able to change in the global Settings menu.
Slashdot Mirror
I routinely sign petitions that, even if I disagree with the premise, I believe deserves a fair airing in public. As a result of this action, I had a minor break with some of my gay friends who were very angry and wanted the names of all the signers.
This was the passage I read which led me to believe you signed the petition. If my inference was in error, then so be it. However, I do stand by my comment in that, people who signed this petition were actively signing a petition to take away the rights of others.
I don't feel it goes toward a broader reading, especially with the 14th Amendment, stating that the law applies to all people, equally, and that the States are just as bound by the BOR as the Federal Government.
Well, that kinda goes with being the Supreme Law of the Land. Granted, if a state thinks that Federal regulations don't go far enough, they can enact their own, tougher ones. Several states have done that with regards to minimum wage laws, and a few others have done that with regards to vehicle emissions laws.
A free society is one that is based on being able to freely express yourself without fear of intimidation, reprisals and death threats
...from the Government. Simply having freedom of speech does not give you freedom from criticism. If you were to post here that you believe that evolution is bunk and that gays should be shunned, then you'd still be free to express your opinion. You might, and on /., most likely, be ridiculed for it, but that is the price you pay for having the freedom to say what you want.
The thing is, petitions in this country aren't handled like that. A petition is generally started by a group of people who think something should become law or should not be law. A petition is seen as a statement that, we, the undersigned, feel a certain way, and want this to happen. The people who bring the petition don't usually feel that something should be decided by the people, but that the people bringing the petition want something to be changed in a particular way.
Even without this decision, a petition attacking the government is going to be delivered to... the government. And the government is still going to go through the process to verify the signatures on the petition.
Just because State's Rights is a priority, doesn't mean that a state can make a decision/law that is unconstitutional. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and no law enacted anywhere in the US can conflict with it.
While I agree that it might have just been easier on all parties to have a re-vote with a redesigned ballot, the question then was not one of fraud (did people who weren't eligible to vote do so), but of confusion (did this ballot indicate a vote for candidate A or B).
You signed the petition AGAINST gay marriage. You can rationalize it however you want, and believe you just feel that it deserves a "Fair hearing," but at the end of the day, you signed a petition AGAINST gay marriage. You signed a petition that was in favor of taking away or denying rights to a class of people.
I agree the bullying is wrong. However, because you are free to express your opinions does not make you free from criticism.
I believe it does. You aren't signing a petition on "Should the issue of gay marriage be on the ballot?" You're signing a petition either FOR or AGAINST gay marriage. You are throwing your support behind that cause.
I disagree with your theory behind signing petitions. Signing a petition is a show of support for the cause. You sign a petition FOR/AGAINST something, not a petition about a question. In context of the story, you're going to sign a petition AGAINST gay marriage, not a petition on gay marriage in general. And if you're not able to find enough people to sign the petition, enough people who believe what you do with regards to the topic at hand, then that's a sign that your position is not widely held enough to pass and become law.
Actually, there was a study that came out after that episode aired. When asked about it, Penn & Teller did admit that, yes, it was a credible study, and that secondhand smoke was not the bullshit they made it out to be.
Which I find cool because it shows that they are willing to admit when they are wrong, and are willing to change their ideas when new information becomes available.
FYI I'd never vote for gay marriage. Does that make you dislike me?
It doesn't make me a fan of yours. I don't care that you'd like to see government out of all marriages. The fact of the matter is, government is involved in heterosexual marriages, and will be for the foreseeable future. Getting government out of it completely may be a noble goal, but the end goal is one of equality under the law, and denying gay marriage does not accomplish that.
Isn't this the exact same behavior we'd be blasting Apple over doing? And that we blasted Amazon for doing to 1984?
You mean Pulitzer Prize. Completely different thing. And that app was allowed in, even though it clearly violates the ToS you agree to when you're an iPhone dev (no political lampooning).
See, we'd kinda expect that behavior from the iPhone, and if I bought the iPhone, I wouldn't be too upset. However, we sided with Android, and agreed that was a risk, in exchange for not having them touch our phone after the fact.
If I know that the owner of a cafe down the street signed the petition opposing gay marriage, I would probably disagree with that, and would probably avoid his cafe. I might get others to do the same.
I support and oppose many things, but none of them strong enough to pick up a pen.
Let me see if I have your system correctly. There would be a finite number of patents that are valid at any one time. When a patent is invalidated, or simply expires, then its slot would be auctioned off. However, the people with patents pending wouldn't be the ones bidding, but rather large corporations. The corporations would get to decide what is patented, and if they win, they get the patent, not the person who submitted it. So a corporation could put up money to patent something, only to make sure it is never used.
Sounds even worse than the system we have now. At least in the system we have now, a small company has a shot at getting a patent without having to sell their invention to a large company.
No, its more similar to the way Linux and UNIX systems operate. Which is much more convenient than Vista.
The time to tell a user that something is trying to do something is when its trying to do something, not just when installing the app. There should be a way for the user to run an app, and then when it attempts to access private data, have the OS pop up a window alerting the user, and giving them the option to allow or deny access.
User rating is pretty easy to game, especially if you don't actually look at the comments. Last app I installed, there were dozens of spam comments, all giving the app 5 stars. And while the Report Malware feature is nice, it does require that said user was intelligent enough to notice the app was malware in the first place.
Its not a triumph of the coder's art, but it does help to put food on the coder's table.
That's not the issue at all, you dolt. The issue is that Android doesn't prompt you before an app attempts to use the services. On the iPhone, you are prompted before it attempts to use a service, and then you can tell it to either allow or deny access. Once chosen, it does remember your choice, but you can change it at any time through the Settings menu.
I believe on the iPhone, you are prompted before the app attempts to use the service, and you are given the ability to allow or deny it access. This is also something you are able to change in the global Settings menu.