Well, this would probably work because there are churches that are willing to marry same-sex couples. So they could be married, and have their civil union the same as different-sex couples.
Due to the overwhelming number of statutes at all levels of government, it would require an amendment to the United States Constitution to catch all of the usages. One of the general rules of conservatism (in the United States) is a reluctance to pass constitutional amendments at that level. I don't see social progressives (again using United States standards for the words) willing to cede the word "marriage" to religious institutions. That means that while this is a potential solution, it has a low chance of implementation.
The other argument being presented is that marriage shouldn't be religious at all, those trappings being added (according to others in this conversation) after Europeans started routinely coming to the Americas.
I'm not aware of how incest or bestiality truly harm society. Maybe you just find them offensive and wish that to be the case?
And as the other person said, individual liberties trump all else most of the time.
Incest - a mechanism would need to be put into place to prevent incestuous couples from having children, due to the preponderance of genetic abnormalities that occur within such relationships. Incest is currently not defined the same in every state, the only consistent parts being direct ancestors/descendants (mother/son, grandfather/granddaughter) and siblings. In most states, marriage to first cousins once removed (your grandparent's sibling's child) is allowed.
Bestiality - is generally considered a matter of consent, similar to rape. Animals cannot give consent and cannot enter into contracts, and both parties need to consent for the marriage to go through. The way underaged marriage is currently handled may provide a framework, since in many of those cases, the parents of the underaged party(ies) can validate the contract (although there are still limits where even that is not the case).
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...
- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Capitalism. There are a pile of ISPs. If one sucks, vote with your dollars. Drop em and get a real ISP. Simple, done.
I'd love to live in your magical land that has a pile of ISPs. I get a choice between ATT and TimeWarner, which both suck.
All of those points are valid, they just aren't dollar-signs.
Although, the time one can be debated if you are staying in the business-center of a large metropolitan area (a very specific case). Then traffic will usually negate any time savings from a car, especially if there is rail as opposed to buses.
There is a reason why the Constitution had to be amended to allow for an income tax. As far as I know, that reason wasn't because the Founding Fathers never heard of such a concept.
The reason why the Constitution had to be amended is that the Fuller court (incorrectly) decided that whether income was from property or not determined whether it was a direct tax or duty. Prior to this ruling it was understood that an income tax was always a duty and not a direct tax, so did not have to be apportioned. The 16th amendment doesn't create the income tax, it just says that the income tax doesn't have to be apportioned even if under the Fuller interpretation it would be a direct tax.
The case is explicitly about holding the phone in your hand while using it.
California Highway Patrol Officer Jack Graham and appellant each testified that, while driving, appellant was cited for looking at amap on his cellular phone while holding the phone in his hand.
The argument in this case (which is an appeals case) is over how broad the law is, and whether it applies.
subdivision (a).Section 23123, subdivision (a) provides:A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.
Some choice statements from the judge:
The term “using” is nowhere defined in the statute, but if the Legislature had intended to limit the application of the statute to “conversing” or “listening and talking,” as appellant maintains, it could have done so
The judge also addresses section 23123.5 which makes it illegal to text (specifically) on a wireless communications device. He indicates that he thinks this was passed to catch non-cellphones, not because the previous section was limited to listening and talking. Throughout he uses some of the legislative notes as context (I think incorrectly - specifically there is a note for 23123.5 by the author of both sections that indicates he believed the first section is only enforceable when holding a cellphone up to your ear, and the second section was added to catch people using devices in a different way). In the end he says that someone should probably bring it up to the legislature if they think 23123 is too broad and 23123.5 is too narrow in illogical ways.
public transport ($$$), relatives/friends, or rent a car ($$).
How much do you think public transport actually costs the end user?
The worst price I could find doing some quick checks of major metro areas is $5/day in LA. The key is to get a pass instead of paying one-time fares. Most cities have 7-day passes, allowing unlimited rides for a limited amount of time.
Taxis, on the other hand, are that expensive. So maybe that's what you meant. Although, I'm not aware of any publicly owned taxi services (apart from ones for disabled/elderly that require registration).
I see gender roles are still alive and well, with Pauline using pink umbrella's and pink handbags in her quest to defeat Donkey Kong...
Has no one actually played Donkey Kong? Those were from the original game as the icons for bonus points. They were Pauline's items that she tossed for Mario to pick up. If he were going to really flip that aspect, he should change the color/style on the umbrella, and maybe make the purse a lunch pail or something. But that's more sprite editing.
Usually when comparing two values, say 200 miles and 55 miles, you would point out how they're different. The way the quote was phrased, it sounds like they expected 200 track miles. It also sounds like they were trying to imply that Tesla were liars about the 200 mile range. Also, saying "we worked out" in one place, and when called on it saying that you didn't is kind of boderline.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/05/top-gear-tesla-jeremy-clarkson among other sources which quote the episode in question.
I agree with everything here except for the 55 mile claim, because the full quote is:
"Although Tesla say it will do 200 miles, we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles and if it does run out, it is not a quick job to charge it up again."
Where the Top Gear guys compare track mileage to real-world mileage, but don't point out that that's what they are doing. It wasn't enough to form a libel case, but it was still dishonest on Top Gear's part.
The dishonesty didn't affect the fundamental points though. They did have a brake failure. The cause of the brake failure may have been a blown fuse, but presumably the circuit is there for a reason.
And they said they'd get about 55 miles of track time from a full charge. This seems to be true. Are Tesla claiming that the remaining charge would have given the car 145 more miles on the track?
No, but Top Gear claimed that they did. The full quote from the show is the issue.
"Although Tesla say it will do 200 miles, we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles and if it does run out, it is not a quick job to charge it up again."
Both of those are true statements, but Top Gear omitted the part where the 200 mile figure was for normal non-track use.
Actually, of all the OSs I've used (OSX included) Windows has been the longest to setup. With OSX you just buy a Mac and done. With Linux, you boot to disk, push next a few times, it runs and you're done. I honestly don't know what Windows does when it's installing, but it takes forever (Win7/8 included).
For most people Windows is just buy a PC and done.
I don't know what kind of magical Linux distros you've been using, but that has never been my experience on consumer grade hardware, every distro I've ever tried has had some oddball installer issue, usually related to either the network or video card. The short summary list of distros (less version information, since I don't remember) is: Linux from Scratch, Linux Mint, Ubuntu Linux, Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, Mandriva, and CentOS (so not very comprehensive).
Real Users never use the Help key.
