One year is as arbitrary as three. And you admit that spending some time with the child when they are young is a good thing so what really is your problem with maternity leave? Just because it isn't the amount you are accustomed to doesn't mean it is wrong.

I think spending time with the child at home over the first years is GREAT and I think the lack of this in todays society has lessened the quality of kids today over yesteryear (with respect to manners and the parental participation in the educational process, etc).

However, I don't believe it should be up to other to PAY for this. If you're gonna have kids, well, then PLAN and be fiscally ready before you pull the old rubber off or quit taking the pill. Be ready to sacrifice, and not live on the ideal standard with nice shiny cars and electronic toys.

It is your kid, plan before you fuck and have one.

Is there something wrong with wanting a rewarding career that you're passionate about?

Nope...but the reality is, most people do NOT have the luxury of having the time and resources to find the perfect job they love in order to work and make a living.

I guess it does help to attain that if you have a man supporting you till you find the one job you love, but that's mostly a luxury for women....but even that has its limitations with 3 mouths to feed and one new one to save for to educate later in life.

Those of us having children are the only ones helping you have all the social welfare programs (pensions and Social Security, etc.)

Social Security...are you serious?

I have paid into that damned system all my life, and would have loved early on to have been able to take that money and invest it myself, rather than the Feds. But here we are now, and by the time I get to retirement age, it likely won't be around, or it will be so severely crippled with new regulations and moving the retirement age, I'll likely never see a meaningful fraction of what I put into it.

And by listening to the millineals (sp?) today they don't seem to want to respect the system put in place, and don't feel they owe anything to the previous generation, and hell...whine that life is tough (entitlement mentality), and they aren't coming out of school making $50K a year, etc. So, no, they don't want to pay into the system, and with the debt the Feds have rolled up these past two presidents....the SS system will go tits up long before I'll get anything out of it.

I"m scrambling now to sock back every cent I possibly can to take care of my own self in my older years. I won't have a wealthy retirement of traveling and golf, but I'm making damned sure I'll have a roof over my head I can call my own, and no debt. The trick is in timing having a good, reliable car that is paid off that will likely last me through the retirement years.

But no..I have no faith in your progeny to uphold the social safety nets or obligations to the elders of society at all.

What is a pension by the way? I thought that term disappeared in the 50's.

First of all....3 YEARS of maternity leave?!?!? What...was the kid a difficult birth, or have problems? Seriously, maternity leave is like a year, more than that is taking time to spend with a kid as a stay at home mother (which is a good thing generally), but wow...that term really is more than should be applied here.

That being said...who is pushing for her to get back in the workforce...her or you?

Once you answer that question...well, it should be up to her where she wants to work and doing what. IT may be a good way to go, but only if that's what she wants to do. There are other interests, and certainly these days...other forms of employment that are more lucrative than just being a code monkey again.

Newegg only has OEM copies.

And your problem with this is what exactly.....?

What is this?

"One Court to Rule them ALL?"

And here we were thinking the Supreme Court was maybe throwing a bit too much weight around making laws up.

I guess SCOTUS is just not secret enough, and FISA is.....

The local big box store has a receptacle for toner cartridges. Hit Best Buy, chuck them in there, call it done, the end.

I had a lot of toner cartridges as well, but no use in keeping them. They are not going to appreciate in value, and as time goes on, that toner cartridge format will be used by fewer printers, so might as well dispose of them properly (and properly isn't the trash can.)

I'd likely waste more $$ on gas packing up and driving to a Best Buy to drop off a single cartridge, than would be saved by recycling.

And as other posters say..what guarantee is it that BB is recycling them in some fashion?

Some things are trash, and crap like this isn't worth my time to drive all over town trying to find a specialized bin to toss it in. I'm not going to keep 3-4 different trash cans taking up limited room in my kitchen to sort shit out, why would I drive all over town to throw out one toner cartridge.

My taxes/fees pay for garbagemen to pick crap up and haul it off. Why not use them for what they are there for?

Ugh..it is trash.

Throw it away, let the garbagemen earn their pay and haul it away for you.

When did the State ever guarantee that they would maintain the medallion program and/or refrain from issuing new medallions? Scarcity of medallions is hardly a natural right, and laws instituting artificial scarcity are subject to change. If anyone over-payed for a medallion under the false assumption that the current state of artificial scarcity was guaranteed to last they have no one but themselves to blame. The only compensation owed here is to those who were unjustly prohibited from operating taxis due to the State's medallion requirements.

The vast majority of slashdot users are not americans, the editors know and don't care.

Where did you get that?

Slashdot has always been a US centric site.

Fortunately, there is no upper bound on "one person's worth of goods and services". If nothing else, leisure time (i.e. sitting around doing nothing, or at least nothing "productive") is a perfectly legitimate good and can expand to absorb any excess. Every time this has happened in the past, however, people managed to find other things to strive for—goods and services which were previously out of their reach, as well as new goods and services which they now have the leisure time to invent.

The problem is that it gives a false sens of security. Your favorite bank can now fire those two last skilled people and get 10 more dumb indians (note: not all indians are dumb) to piss off shitty code. Just run their "CodePhage magic" and you still have a software full of holes (but a little less than if you didn't run it.)

The problem is just that now that you have fired those two people that knew what they were talking about, you're just clueless about what is going on.

If you aren't from here, haven't grown up here, live here, then you are talking out of your ass.

The oppression and racism thing ended down here back in the 60's. You just don't see that here anymore and no..the Stars and Bars for my lifetime has not been use or seen as something for oppression. It was a backdrop for a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert, nothing more than that level of southern pride thing.

You speak as an outsider that knows nothing of life down here in the SE USA.

Well at least we can now distinguish protest from celebration, because it seems that in France, setting your neighbors car into a blazing inferno is a sign of celebration.

Same thing happens in the US when a more urban city's sports teams win a championship it seems....

This is where you are wrong. There are formulations of rights which are neither mere social constructs nor based on religion—which is, in the end, just another variety of social construct. My preference is the one based on the legal concept of estoppel, which can be summarized as the logical principle that one cannot rely on incompatible claims within the same argument. For example, one cannot consistently argue that one has the right to act in a certain way toward others while simultaneously claiming that those affected lack the right to reciprocate. Either everyone has the right or no one does. If the right exists then the first party infringed on it and deserves the punishment; if not, then neither the original action nor the response infringes on anyone's rights.

In this case there is the additional complication that "the right to marry" is really referring to a number of different aspects of the law, not simply the right to hold a marriage ceremony and consider oneself married but also power of attorney, visitation rights, joint taxation, common ownership of property, etc. However, the gender of the two parties is irrelevant to all of these legal considerations; there is no reason whatsoever that the law should permit e.g. visitation rights to a couple composed of a male and a female, but deny them to a couple composed of two males or two females.

If certain individuals of a religious persuasion wish to consider homosexuality a sin, fine. They don't have to practice it themselves, or even associate with those who do. But there is certainly nothing in the Bible which would require anyone to deny that the relationship exists, or to refuse such couples equal rights under the law. This ruling is about the law, not religion.