Civil Union is a 20th century term. I challenge you to find any reference to such in the history books prior to the 20th century. It's always been called marriage and religion has no claim on the word. Religion is pretty much irrelevant to marriage here in the US. You have a Wedding in church. The state is the one who issues your marriage license. One is optional. The other is not.
An interesting read if you can find the time. A simple example: If congress directed the President to terminate all persons of Muslim decent, would the President be bound by law to execute the law as written by Congress?
Once DOMA came under higher scrutiny in the appellate courts, it allowed the DOJ and the Executive to require more than theoretical use cases for defending the law. It also allowed them to call into question the constitutionality of such laws and whether or not the Constitution granted them the right to enforce a law that seemed to be in direct contradiction to said Constitution (arguably the highest law in the land).
[Ref - http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/96-5/Prakash.PDF..]
First, the Constitution never empowers the President to enforce unconsti- tutional statutes. He no more has the power to enforce such statutes than he has power to enforce the statutes of Georgia or Germany. Second, the President’s duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution requires the President to disregard unconstitutional statutes. When the President enforces a statute he regards as unconstitutional, he violates the Constitution no less than if he were to imprison citizens without hope of trial. Third, the Faithful Execution Clause requires the President to choose the Constitution over unconstitutional laws, in the same way that courts must choose the former over the latter. Consistent with these understandings, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued that executives could not enforce unconstitutional laws. Indeed, President Jefferson halted Sedition Act prosecu- tions on grounds that the Act was unconstitutional. According to Jefferson, his duty to defend the Constitution barred him from executing measures that violated it.
No, it is his Constitutional duty to enforce the Laws of this United States, AND to Uphold the Constitution, and the two CAN and DO come into conflict from time to time. There have been some 13 times in the past when the Executive refused to enforce a law they saw as unconstitutional. This does not mean they can simply ignore a law. They must have a well reasoned argument to do so. In the case of DOMA, his stance was justified as of this morning's ruling.
Your claim that he is somehow usurping the rights of the Legislative branch are out of hand until such as time as either the legislative branch modifies the power granted under the Patriot Act, or until the Judicial Branch declares such laws as unconstitutional. Tin Foil hats aside, having phone numbers logged into a database that requires a warrant and approval from FISA to even view to the courts mind, meets the legal requirements of unreasonable search and seizure. They cannot just go into the database 'just cause'. They must present a valid concern related to suspected terrorist activity just to search the database, receive approval from the court, which itself must report back to Congress on a regular basis for auditing purposes.
In short, your issue is with Congress.
Interesting. So if congress passes the Patriot Act that makes the Executive's actions 'legal', you would still label the Executive as a Fuhrer for executing the laws that Congress passed?
Of course, if he was a better 'Fuhrer, you'd be baking in an oven somewhere no doubt...
A thousand times NO. The word "Marriage" is NOT owned by any religious group. It was first and foremost a civil term. It was incorporated into a religious ceremony until the 1500's in Christian circles. Marriage was known in the bible but largely considered a private matter that didn't involve the church. Why should a civil union surrender to the demands of a religion that is usurping the word Marriage?
What specific rights are you implying 'Fuhrer Obama' took away from you? I'm also curious how he did so, being in the Executive, rather than the Legislative branch.
They also don't seem to appreciate the fact that if we replaced 'Android' with IE, then this conversation would be going a totally different direction. I never would have thought I'd see
This crowd especially should be pushing Google to force handset manufacturer's to keep their gear current, or to at least close vulnerabilities. Claiming Google doesn't have the power to do so is rediculous. The simple fact that you can get an iPhone 3G or iPhone 4 with the latest version of iOS 6 is a good thing. The fact that you can still buy an 'new' Android phone with Gingerbread, is a pretty sad state and not something to be proud of, and no amount of fan cover can hide that fact.
Getting the latest API isn't the only reason to keep an OS current. All these fans are doing is giving handset vendors a free pass.
Also ironic that they are slamming the fact that a 4 year old phone doesn't get all of the features of a brand new device with new hardware, when the old phones that never see an update get none of the new features offered by an OS update. Unless they are skilled enough to jailbreak, or even know what to look for, they just stick with whatever it came with, security exposures and all.
Three things to consider. New hardware releases for these iOS devices hit every 12-18 months, with moderate to substantial gains in processing and graphics power. Couple that with cheap digital games costing a fraction of console prices, and simple portability from one iOS device to the next, even when going to an entirely new device, or even from a phone to a pad, and the appeal could definitely be there.
Actually it's not. You can stream the output from the iPhone display directly to a TV via WiFi and Airplay, meaning any game you put on an iOS device can be displayed via an Apple TV. Combine that with a game controller, and you in essence have a digital delivery game console, that fits in your pocket.
It will be interesting to see what kind of lag that WiFi streaming introduces, but the basics are all there.
You should probably re-read the post, rather than going on for 3 pages.
"The underlying structure is irrelevant in a task oriented file system. "
I didn't state that it doesn't use any file system. I was speaking specifically to the file system, such as it is, presented to the end user. An iOS device doesn't present any of the underlying file system to the end user, and really has no need to. You as a geek may have need to specify which app you want to open some
A good example: I use a gym app frequently, and occasionally beta new builds of iOS. As a regular part of that process, I backup those files prior to installing any new system updates. I don't need to know 'where' on the device they are stored It's irrelevant to my needs. I just select my Gym app, and I get a list of the SQL and user files presented to me with a Save button.
It is his fault that the wrong information was leaked. He enabled such a leak by handing over the docs in the first place, and must take responsibility as to how that data was handled after it left his hands. The end result is definitely his responsibility. Right or Wong.
As far as this leak goes, I do thing they will make an example of this guy, again, right or wrong. I think most who follow what the patriot act did probably assume this was already happening, but I don't think they understood the scope. Having it brought to light is important, but ultimately, I think he should have stayed anonymous.
You imply his ideology was socialist in nature (or at least part of it was), and then contradict that statement in your second sentence stating he essentially used the socialist party to gain enough power to the point where they were no longer needed.
I don't think you understand the definition of ideology.
Simply claiming to be something, doesn't make it so. The reference above to the Democratic People's Republic of North-Korea is a good example, as are right wing extremists claiming to be born again Christians, yet follow none of the basic tenants of that religion. Socialism for Hitler was nothing more than a vehicle, not an ideology. The majority of scholars agree that his leanings were definitely right wing, although he often attacked both parties when they strayed from his personal ideology.
Any civilization today has aspects of socialism. it is nearly impossible to have a structured society without some form of body politic which actively promotes social services that the public recognizes are necessary for basic services. The very nature of civilization requires aspects of socialism to thrive.
It is simply the degree to which they think the government should control things that defines 'socialism'.
Or he could take the correct approach and just deny the commit, rather than spewing noise about it, all the while taking non-bug fixes in an RC and then bitching about it. Why waste the time and energy. Make them resubmit with only bug fixes the way it is intended to be done.
You couldn't be more wrong. They do not use the legacy file system as you know it. They use a task specific file system. It's evident in every aspect of iCloud, and iTunes. When you want to work with files relating to your gym app, you select the gym app on your iDevice, and you will see all files related to that app. iCloud is the same way.
Apple's method doesn't need 'directories' or anything of the sort. The underlying structure is irrelevant in a task oriented file system. You see the files specific to the task you are working on. It doesn't require knowledge of the underlying file system, or a knowledge of how folder structures work or are layed out. You seem to think that Apple is targeting a geek. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's probably one of the primary reasons that geeks hate Apple so much. They don't market to geeks, they don't sell the features you think are important, and it's also the reason that geeks just don't get why average Joe and Jane like Apple's approach. It doesn't require computing knowledge. It's intuitive to a regular person. They can spend more time using their device to do the things they want it for, rather than worrying about applying the latest shell.
We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.
