Yes and no... Opposite sex or same sex marriage is the same institution, marriage, and nothing changes when you change the genders of those involved. Polygamous marriage is a different institution, as you admit when you said "the question of marital property [in polygamy] is one of the issues that legislatures will have to address when the ban is overturned as it inevitably will be".

As a different institution, the fact that marriage is a fundamental right is irrelevant to whether polygamy is a fundamental right, any more than a right to marry being fundamental means that driving a car is a fundamental right.

That is a fine and workable solution but it can't be done by simply changing the word "wife" or "husband" to "spouse". It would require a new statute that is similar to the above (or likewise based on the Uniform Partnership Act, which covers your other situation). That's different from simply enabling gay marriage..

I interpret this differently.

AMD cpu division has been losing money hands over fists since the first i series for quite some time. It doesn't matter if it fits your needs. It only matters if they can compete with Intel. They can't.

ATI however brings in some money I guess. So this is a test to see if the intel version sells 4x more. If it does perhaps it is time for AMD to leave Intel to the x86 to remain solvent? It pains me to type this as I went AMD since the athlonXP days to the phenom II I just retired last summer.

Sorry Hairy but in Star Wars the OLD republic where I got 20 FPS I now get 40 fps iwth the same video card since I went from a 2.6 ghz 6 core phenom II to a 3.5 ghz i7 which is only 4 core. If I wasn't so cheap ... or I should say ex would allow me to spend $150 for a 2010 i5 when I bought my phenom I would not have had this problem.

Also AMD really does suck with power management. You won't see my MS Surface carrying an AMD anytime soon. My coworker like you is an AMD fanboy but he admits for a notebook he won't touch AMD.

As tablets take over as the Surface and WIndows 10 with universal metro apps and 2 SDK's to port IOS and Android apps with 85% of the original code to IWndows Phone/Windows 10 take off in the coming years this will be ever so important. True WIndows 8.1 was frustrating and both of us hated it with a passion, but I concede it rocks on a surface and Windows 10 is what 8 should have been.

So I could be wrong but a test to dip the waters is my 1st guess. Second AMD could be preparing to leave the cpu market entirely since Intel is about to embark .14 nm skylake. What is AMD .28??? Slower performance, more heat, and more power sadly since they sold of global foundaries. Global foundaries are reserving .14 nm chips for phones. AMD is too small of a market to give a crap about. Ouch ...

Windows 10 will help. Windows Server 2016 can install in just 8 gigs of space so my guess is 10.1 will be even more efficient

That is a poor way to do this.

No apps SHOULD NOT write to the registry ever with the exception of an installation. Yes ask a DBA about forks or run Firefox for extended periods of time whose profile on SQLite will slow its startup over time :-)

Also what about security? Do you really want any app writting to it? If your browser writes to it and have a crafty Russian Flash app then through a bypass a website can do whatever it wants via your registry. This is a no no from that perspective as well.

Infact Windows 7 has virtualized registry changes to not corrupt the real copy. When an app you install fails it will ask you if it installed properly? This is to undo the changes.

The proper way is to have a service that runs as admin but even that should not write to the registry all the time and UAC prevents this which is what pissed people off about Vista. Microsoft's plan was to get the users mad at the vendors for writting shitty annoying apps. Not MS for it's OS. But Vista forced poorly written apps to be rewritten for Windows7 which will not impact the system.

Run the disk cleanup app under accessories -> system tools?

Select the updates/system files option. Now run the scan it will trim the SXS and temporary files used for system updates after your 7 system restarts.

I disagree.

Windows 7 is still very snappy on my AMD phenom II. XP had WIndows ROT problems with poorly written apps and even updates which forked the registry many times which impaled the startup process. I have not seen a slowdown at all. I do admit I upgraded to an i7 and now have 8.1 on it but I occasionally use the other system.

I think he has .net framework recompiles going which happen after these updates are one of those defective evo 840 drives which will halt after a few months without a patch to fix the charge leakage bug.

1. Your operating system is very old at nearly 7 years. Time flies bye and I laugh at the companies who are angry at the prospect of starting a WIndows 10 migration acting somehow that 7 just came out last year and is all so new etc. The point is you will have 200 updates and the .net framework will need to re-compile to your cpu dependent architecture each time an update hits for better performance. Have fun with that one.

2,
Windows ROT is soo last decade with WindowsXP.

It is caused by poorly written programs that run as admin and write to the registry each time they run. So you run the app 200 days a year and it creates 200 forks of the registry that need to launch in parallel at startup :-)

With UAC WIndows 7 doesn't have this problem.

3. Do you own an Samsung EVO SSD?

If so they will slow to a crawl very rapidly without a patch. They will hang after a few months of heavy use for several seconds before a file even transfers. I only buy the pro drives. Go google this up as their is an engineering flaw which impacts the read due to the way the cells are manufactured.?

From the opinion:

Weird. You quoted me and then you responded to something completely unrelated. You were supposed to try to poke holes in the logic of "marriage = gay marriage; marriage != polygamy". Instead, you responded that there are tax filings and estates and such. That's not in dispute - the issue here is (i) is gay marriage just "marriage" and (ii) is polygamy just "marriage". In fact, as you note, there are a whole bunch of "implementation details" that have to get worked out for polygamy but don't for gay marriage, which is why polygamy is not the same as marriage. But let's try again, just in case you got your wires crossed:

Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that.

And once you do, there are literally no other changes to the laws. Not so with forms that you have to add "spouse 1", "spouse 2", "spouse 3", "spouse 4", etc.

Nope. It favors the primary caretaker. That frequently happens to be the mother, but not always. The laws themselves, however, make no distinction between stay at home dads vs. stay at home moms. The "stay at home" is the important part, not the genitals.

Maybe you missed the two paragraphs explaining that. Not sure how, considering I've now quoted them twice so they've appeared in their entirety in three separate posts now. I have some theories, but... well... they're not kind.

"Apparently" you didn't read the post you replied to, twice. It's not that I would refute that, apparently, but that I did. Twice. It's quoted above a third time. Will you respond to it FINALLY or just admit you're a troll?

Yep, trolling. Or an imbecile. One of those two. My money's on the former, since you appear to be able to use a computer.

Seriously, you're arguing that recognizing that a large group of people has more votes than a small group of people is "pretty much hate speech". Well, that's "pretty much idiotic."

Well, first I counted to two. Then I kept counting. Then I realized that I had a number larger than two. That's "pretty much hate speech" in your world, apparently because anything beyond base 3 is tyranny or something.

Seriously, are you proud of your post? Because anyone who reads it is just going to shake their head at you.

Not so, plenty of people can argue that things are wrong when they are not. For example, you're arguing with me right now. The mere fact that people disagree doesn't mean something can't be true.

Sure, you can make that statement. The difference is that I can support mine with logic, and you cannot. For example, in the post you're replying to:

Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that. As of yet, you've simply ignored it.

No, you used the term bigot because you're projecting. Let's see if I've got this right:
1. You are against gay marriage. Evidence for this is you saying my statement that gay marriage is marriage "is wrong".
2. You think that the arguments against gay marriage and polygamy are identical. Evidence for this is the fact that you've been arguing they're identical.
3. You think that I am against polygamy. Evidence for this is you calling me a bigot for being against polygamy (despite the fact that I've never said anything of the sort).
(and finally)
4. You think you can catch me being hypocritical because I'm against polygamy, but not against gay marriage, and the arguments are the same. Evidence for this is you saying that if anti-gay marriage people are called bigots, then you think that I should be called a bigot with my 'logic'.

But no. You're wrong on every count. 1 - gay marriage is marriage; 2 - it's not an identical argument with polygamy; 3 - I have no problem with polygamy; and 4 - I'm not a hypocrite.

Sorry, bub, but you're transparent. It's like you got your talking points from Rush Limbaugh.

Not at all. Here's the logic, broken down into short bits so you can understand it:
It's unconstitutional to treat groups that are similarly situated in different ways.
Blacks and whites are similarly situated. Race does not affect their ability to contribute to or participate in society.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are similarly situated. Sexual orientation does not affect their ability to contribute to or participate in society.
Men and women are similarly situated. Gender does not affect their ability to contribute to or participate in society.
(see where this is going yet? No?)
Large groups and couples are not similarly situated. The number of people in a group directly affects its ability to contribute to or participate in society. Large numbers of people have more votes than small numbers. They consume more resources. They can be in more places at once. Etc., etc.

That's the logic. Count clearly matters.

So you think a right is only fundamental if it's listed in the Constitution? I take it you never read the 9th Amendment?

Let me Google that for you.

HTH. HAND.

Great, thanks! Glad someone is reading my words and seeing what's there and what's not.

/facepalm

So close, and yet so far.

Yep, you missed something. Please go back and reread my posts. If something still doesn't make sense, please cut and paste or use the "quote parent" button. I feel no need to keep restating something over and over when you clearly aren't reading it.

Nope, marriage is part of our traditions and collective conscience. As a fundamental right, it can't be denied to gay people. Polygamy is not, and therefore is not a fundamental right. The reasoning is consistent.

The comparison you're trying (and failing) to make is that people were denying gay marriage because, as they said, "gay marriage" is not a fundamental right and not in our traditions, as if it was something different. It is not: gay marriage is marriage. There is nothing different about it, except for the genders involved. Therefore, it's not a "new" right outside of our traditions, but the same exact and existing right. One can say "marriage is a fundamental right, and gay marriage is marriage, so therefore gay marriage is also a fundamental right."

Polygamy, however, is different than marriage. As noted above (remember, the part you keep trying to dismiss as administrative convenience?), there's a whole bunch of substantive issues that are different when there are two people compared to when there are three or more. It's a different institution than marriage, with more than just a simple gender difference. Accordingly, one cannot simply say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore polygamy is a fundamental right" any more than one can say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore driving a car is a fundamental right." They're different things.

And finally, before you continue throwing around that "you're a bigot" name calling bullshiat personal attack, realize that I haven't said anything against polygamy. In fact, I think it would be a fine thing to legalize. All I've said is that there is not an equal protection or due process analogy between gay marriage and polygamy because - as repeatedly and thoroughly noted above, despite your inability to read - they are not the same institution, any more than driving a car is the same institution as marriage.