Actually, IMHO, the Indiana language raises a serious "Entanglement" question. Of course, the law in its present form is untested; so we have no idea whether that will be the case (no pun).

But, the Term of Art "Intervene" is used, as it is in a Federal False Claims Act ("Qui-Tam") case, not to refer to the Judiciary performing its usual duties of "interpretation"; but rather when the Government actually becomes a PARTY to the case-in-chief (in the case of the FCA, the Plaintiff, and in the case of RFRA, the Defendant(?)). Otherwise, the Government would ALWAYS be considered a Party in EVERY case, and of course that is patently ridiculous.

And besides, it is clear by the plain language of the IRFRA that it is primarily intended to be used as an Affirmative Defense not by the Government; but by the "real" Defendant(s).

No.

I just get tired of manually typing in style tags, and so revert to the old non-styled text way of providing emphasis.

And so what, exactly does that have to do with the content of my post, Mr. AC?

That's what I get for not checking my facts!

I TOLD you I wasn't a fanboy...

I am embarrassed as hell to be a Hoosier.

And as far as I'm concerned, this picture, of the PRIVATE Bill-Signing Ceremony for IRFRA, (Press and Public not invaded!) says it all.

I must admit I have been avoiding updating my iPad 2 to iOS 8, because I am concerned about that very issue. But, it has been nearly seven years since the iPad 2 came out; in "tech world", that's quite a long time,

I'm a "fan"; but no "fanboy".

I work with Windows all day. I write Windows application software all day. My work laptop is a Samsung, running Windows 7. I have to deal with and do Admin stuff on several versions of Windows Server, from Server 2003 through 2012 R2. I'm a Certified SQL Server Admin. Blah, blah.

So I know the difference.

But you are right; at best, my jab was off-topic. At worst, it was as boorish as the daily onslaught of Apple-Hate that AC after AC spews on these pages.

And so, I will apologize.

Perhaps a [sarcasm] tag next time?

True enough; but if Apple follows its usual pattern, everything from the SECOND-generation will be upgradeable for several years.

I do agree that their track record on upgrades of FIRST-generation devices is not so stellar; in fact, it's almost as horrible as the typical Android upgrade lifespan...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Wrong. That's not what I meant.

The actual text of the law differs in some significant ways.

I agree that a good portion of the law is the same as the Federal version; however, the bit about using the IRFRA as an "Affirmative Defense", and the fact that the STATE can actually INTERVENE to act as a Co-Defendant/Amicus PARTY in a CIVIL case are pretty substantial differences. True, they don't take much words; but the EFFECT could be HUGE.

Only if you can't read.

And, I would imagine, minimizing the inventory "shrinkage" (theft). It's FAR too easy to rip-off something like a watch when a salesperson is distracted (by your accomplice).

You do realize, of course, that what you just described is also a form of snobbery, too. One that is far too common on Slashdot.

It's that "...on which I'm running Linux." that really points out how 1337 you think you are.

Well, I'm not sure about the iWatch yet; but, at least in the case of the First Generation iPod (2001), the legacy "sync" support seems to be going strong.

Fourteen years of protocol support is pretty damned good, period.

How will the software in an Apple Watch not be upgradeable?

There's this new thing called Flash memory. Look into it.

Haters gotta hate...

Bzzt! WRONG!

From the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Rule 8(C):

"(C) Affirmative defenses. A responsive pleading shall set forth affirmatively and carry the burden of proving: accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process or service of process, the same action pending in another state court of this state, and any other matter constituting an avoidance, matter of abatement, or affirmative defense. A party required to affirmatively plead any matters, including matters formerly required to be pleaded affirmatively by reply, shall have the burden of proving such matters. The burden of proof imposed by this or any other provision of these rules is subject to the rules of evidence or any statute fixing a different rule. If the pleading mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation." [Ind.Trial.Rule 8(C), emphasis added].

Here's another definition of "Affirmative Defense, specifically referencing "Statute of Limitations".

"Affirmative Defense" is a "Term of Art", idiot. Learn what those words mean (all of them).

You need to learn to read.

The Indiana RFRA is different from the Federal one because it is different. As in "different words with different meanings."

It is the pro-RFRA crowd that is saying "Nothing to see here. Same law as was passed 20 years ago."

But it isn't. And THAT'S the DIFFERENCE!

Got it?