A mercury switch operates on gravity. Tilt a package (like, say, pick it up carelessly, or rotate it to face the label up to read who sent it) to complete the circuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So, mercury switches are more interesting to law enforcement than other types.

When people sign up for things using one of my email addresses, I simply recover the password through email, then login, cancel the account, change the password and move on.

There is a jackass in NYC who shares my name, and has signed up for things like Spotify and Netflix using a variation of my gmail address (minus the periods, which do not matter to gmail). I cancel everythng he orders using my email address.

Taylor, if you're out there, just know that the NSA, Google, and now me, know all about your wild side.

His point still stands.

Advertisers are buying ad impressions for certain demographics. The advertisers are buying more ads for these jobs that target males.

It isn't Google doing this - they're just offering the advertising tools. It's the purchasers of the ads that are causing this to happen.

This is not complex.

No thanks, I prefer to have less latency. Also, no word on resolution, but unless it uses HDMI 2.0 or DisplayPort, it's not going to be HiDPI. Who would want a non-HiDPI, 30Hz screen these days?

First of all, Iran COULD NOT USE the bomb if it had one.

Why? 1. They can't bomb Jerusalem, which is as holy to them as to jews and Christians. Their own people would slaughter them. AND they'd kill most of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank. 2. Israel is smaller than the US state of New Jersey. At one point, I believe it's a total of ->17mi- wide. What this means is using the bomb *anywhere* in Israel means fallout on Jerusalem. 3. Following 2, it *also* means fallout on the Palestinians. 4. Oh, yes - the winds would mean that fallout would COME BACK TO IRAN.

Therefore, the ONE and ONLY purpose that Iran would want the bomb is MAD with Israel (who has a bunch of bombs, and would cheerfully use it on Iran, if they didn't think there'd be no Israel left afterwards.

Oh, yes, and with all the climate-change deniers here, *no* *one* could imagine that maybe Iran's worried about when their oil fields are played out, and planning to do things with the money while they have it to prepare for the future, no, no, that's *way* more than next quarter....

mark

Why is the entire test in Java? Not Javascript but actual Java. I mean, at least it's not .NET or C# (aka, platform specific).

Yep, that's the bullshit argument that people were rolling out against same sex marriage all right. That because it wasn't traditional, it wasn't fundamental.

The core mistake with that argument, whether in the context of same sex marriage or marriage among persons already married, or in larger numbers than two, is that what's fundamental is not opposite sex marriage, or same sex marriage, or polygamous marriage, but simply marriage, without qualification of any kind.

But, if you change, "spouse and spouse" to "a group of spouses", then how do you change "upon death of a spouse, the remaining spouse shall inherit 100% of communal property before probate"? As in, you die, and your three widows each inherit 100%? That's 300%. Where do you get two more identical houses?

Well, first, the spouse is generally only entitled to 1/3 of the assets and in some cases, up to a certain dollar amount in an intestate death. Wills and contracts normally supersede all that unless the widow(er) receives less than that amount in which they can contest the will (though usually not the contract).

But to answer the question, it would be the unit "spouse" that receives the inheritance. If there was three spouses, they would all have to act as one unit for the transfer then figure out what to do after that. It's no different than a company being owned by 20 people that dissolves or is somehow transferred. In fact, I have two minor stakes in partnerships that one says upon my death the companies will be sold and 30% of the value will go to the first heir in the estate of the deceased and the other says my stake is to be transferred upon death to the partners. Both of those will happen before any inheritance or probate takes place.

According to the court's majority decision marriage is not about property and inheritance rights, but about love, spirituality, etc.

Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6–9; Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 8–29. Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law. See Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 15–16). The States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order.

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

I addressed that already, as have others. Inheritance, child custody, hospital visitation, all of that, all of your "substantive" issues can be addressed in a manner not unlike what is done for couples. We could have group tax filings. It's just more names on the forms and more W2s and/or 1099s. Estates can be split as with children when there are no surviving parents. Etc. Those are implementation details, those are not justifications for continued discrimination.

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.

That's like saying, well.. a lot of forms already have Mr and Mrs on them and we'd have to change them

... or child custody in many/most states favor the female/mother.

You can't just say "x is marriage" and use that as a persuasive reason why it should be so.

As I stated in that context, I can also say "poly is marriage" but you'd refute that apparently.

Wow! Polygamists don't contribute to society the same way that a couple can? That's pretty much hate speech right there.

I can't imagine what's going through your mind to come up with that gem.

There it is finally. That's the point of contention. The last sentence is wrong. If it were true, then there never would have been any argument to the contrary.

I can make the exact same statement: poly marriage is marriage.

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.

I used the term bigot because I don't know how else to explain your position on this.

You say you haven't said anything against polygamy but you won't acknowledge that it's the same thing. It is no less a fundamental right. Race isn't, gender isn't, count shouldn't be either going by the same logic.

I don't care what the court or the constitution say on this matter. Fundamental rights are not defined by the constitution, merely documented (or not) by it. That's why they're fundamental.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You've got to be fucking kidding. How does being "part of the traditions" have any relevance to something being a fundamental right?

[T]he court used the remaining 14th Amendment protections for equal protection and due process to "incorporate" individual elements of the Bill of Rights against the states. "The test usually articulated for determining fundamentality under the Due Process Clause is that the putative right must be 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty', or 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.'" Compare page 267 Lutz v. City of York, Pa., 899 F. 2d 255 - United States Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 1990.

You may not have used the word convenience.

But when you say that because new laws need to be passed it should not happen