Sure. Perhaps you've heard of bigamy? Alice can't marry Carol because Bob already has a vested marital interest with Alice. For example, if Alice marries Carol and dies, Carol is entitled to 100% of her assets as spouse. But so is Bob.

That's not the policy rationale for the prohibition on bigamy, and while it is perhaps a little better of a reason than administrative convenience, it boils down to the same thing, since the question of marital property is one of the issues that legislatures will have to address when the ban is overturned as it inevitably will be.

On the contrary, tradition is absolutely relevant as to whether something is a fundamental right. Marriage is a fundamental right because it's enshrined in our traditions and collective conscience. ...
Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions or collective conscience, and therefore is not a fundamental right.

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.

Issues like gender, race, consanguinity, marital status, and number of spouses are all restrictions on that singular fundamental right. Whether they stand hinges on whether they can be justified. Two of them, it transpires, cannot be. Ultimately I think the only restriction that will hold up will be consent, and perhaps consanguinity will have to be reframed in terms of consent if it's to be salvaged.

2.5). ???

Like most low end Chevy vehicles it'll probably be a complete shame and do the meaning of the word 'electric', that Tesla has worked so hard to craft prestige into, a disservice. 200 miles isn't enough. People will walk away from electric like they walked away from Atari going 'huh, video games are dumb'.

this is /., what did you expect???

still involves swearing an oath with right hand on the Bible. This speaks both to their valuation of the Bible [not my problem], and their valuation of their word. This latter part should concern you

because, as noted earlier, 3>2. Equal protection is an issue where two groups that are equally situated are treated differently. For marriage, there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. There is a difference between a couple and a larger group, however.

The litigant needn't be the entire group. Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to various restrictions, such as consent and consanguinity. Yesterday, one of the restrictions, at least in some places, was that the genders of two of the spouses couldn't be the same. Today, it's fine nationwide if they're the same.

The restriction to look at now is whether the marital status of each spouse in the marriage at hand is single. Today it has to be. But there's not a good reason for it. (As already mentioned, administrative convenience is not a good reason). So why can't Alice, who is married to Bob, now also marry Carol? Bob isn't marrying Carol; the A-C marriage would be between two people only. You're treating Alice differently merely because she is already married.

It's also not a fundamental right, as polygamy is not part of the traditions and collective conscience of society, except for Mormons.

Marriage is a fundamental right and is extremely broad. Restrictions on marriage, such as requiring the spouses to be of opposite genders, or of the same race, or of the same religion, or of compatible castes, etc. are not inherently part of marriage and are certainly not part of the fundamental right of marriage.

Also, today's events make it clear that tradition is irrelevant; polygamy is practiced today among many groups, and has a long history back into antiquity. Same sex marriage was known in the past but was far more rare.

It will certainly be a massive pain in the ass. But administrative inconvenience is not an adequate justification for denying people their fundamental rights or equal protection of the law. It'll take a while, but just as this took a while, but in time polyamororous marriages will be legally recognized.

You asked for it the banning of "Gone With The Wind," the liberals are happy to deliver...

http://nypost.com/2015/06/24/gone-with-the-wind-should-go-the-way-of-the-confederate-flag/

I don't get it. How the HELL can Canonical ever call this a success? The phones are not going on sale to the general public. How many units does it take to make back the NRE?? Well, if you are intentionally limiting the units, it may take a hell of a lot. What is up with this business move?

He really screwed up the release of these documents. He needed to compile all the worst offenses and release them back to back to back. A year ago or so when he released the most damning one, Congress started fussing, but then he went quiet for another several months. Releasing it slowly allowed the public opinion to warm up to the idea of it, instead of adding fuel to fire we were trying to hold the NSA's feet to.

Now, the opportunity is lost, and will never be had again, except for maybe in the new country that starts on Mars from the pilgrims that follow John Galt^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Elon Musk there to start the Atlas society.

I'm using a PC and I don't need AV software. I occasionally install AVGFree when 'something is acting funny' just to make sure (to date only once was it a remote-jack virus) or if I accidently clicked through an Ask.com toolbar installation on the latest bundle of aTube Catcher that I downloaded. Otherwise, I've been fine. Stay away from shady websites and don't install every *.exe you run across and you'll be fine

oh, I thought he was a monkey person.

I guess that would change how I feel about him

I appreciate your reply, though please note that the post you're replying to was incomplete; Slashdot's lousy UI went ahead and posted it while I was in the middle of writing it. For the whole thing (revised slightly) see here: http://entertainment.slashdot....

Anyway, I don't have any qualms with rightsholders complaining about, or refusing to assign or license rights to, businesses that they disagree with. That's their choice. But the music industry is in a bad way right now. Siding with Apple might be a bad choice, but refusing to deal with them might also be a worse one. There probably isn't a good option to choose.

Most people won't buy CDs if they can buy tracks online. Most people won't buy tracks online if they can stream; music purchase is already dying if you look at the numbers. Most people won't pay for streaming if they can stream for free. And most people won't do any of those things if the cost and inconvenience is even moderate, because piracy is free and quite easy also.

(Note also that because an individual's taste in music typically ossify, once they've got a big enough collection, barring format shifts, which don't happen anymore, you basically lose them as a customer. You'd better hope that they stream instead of collecting, and that if they collect, they pay for it instead of pirate it)

Like it or lump it, this is the reality that participants in the music industry need to face. Bitching about Apple isn't going to change it.