Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Proof (Actual Reporting of Real News) (Score 1) 133

Thank you for that post. You summed up more information than I had seen on the subject. I had just assumed when reading the /. article that GreatFire was just a reference to the source of the attack, I had never heard of the software.

I wonder if GreatFire has a donation link...Googling does not answer this question for me though.

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1055

by Coren22 (#49380017) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

No failure of logic or issue with homosexuals involved. I agree fully with the rest of your statement.

Why is poligamy against the law? Who was harmed?

Why is incest against the law? Who is harmed?

Why was homosexual marriage against the law? Who was harmed?

The state shouldn't be restricting marriage, they should be allowing whatever marriage a church will perform.

Better?

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1055

by Coren22 (#49379991) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

I am saying the state just needs to hand out the certificates and let the church decide if they will marry a specific couple.

Already the Catholic church will not marry a couple that is not intending to have children, gay straight old young, it doesn't matter. The children are required for the marriage. So post menopausal women aren't allowed to marry in the catholic church (though this may have changed in the 12 years since I got married). The church is defining the rules under which they will perform a ceremony. I also don't have a problem with the Methodist church defining marriage as between you, your brother, your mother, your boyfriend (all assuming you are a guy...), it bothers me none. I also don't have a problem with the church of latter day saints allowing polygamy. It should be legal as long as all parties involved agree to it (the existing wife should also approve of the new wife, just as the new wife has to approve).

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1055

by Coren22 (#49379953) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

That is the same as I was saying stated another way. The state shouldn't tell any church the definition of marriage. The state should hand over the marriage certificate, the person presiding (and witnesses) signs, and boom you are married. It shouldn't be the state telling the church that they have to marry this couple or be sued...which is where it is heading with the anti religion crowd as the outcry against this Indiana law shows.

Comment: Re:Congress is a bunch of fucking retards (Score 1) 132

by Coren22 (#49379851) Attached to: GAO Denied Access To Webb Telescope Workers By Northrop Grumman

The requirement is to keep Official Records. Those are transferred to the national archives. They are the ones who release items that are no longer classified. The paper records were for years maintained. When scanning became possible, the archives started digitizing everything. When digital methods came around of generating records, digital records were expected to be maintained and transferred just like the old paper ones.

Obviously the old laws didn't cover email specifically, but they covered records, of which email was a record when it started to be used for the purpose.

Comment: Re:It's been repeatedly shown you are a bigot. (Score 1) 1055

by Coren22 (#49379701) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

Last I checked the First Amendment was passed in 1791 and stated that the state was forbidden from "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,". This law that is being discussed in TFA is talking about that, and I was bringing up another side to it. I am saying the state shouldn't be determining what marriage is because it is a religious ceremony. It should be each religion's choice whether they will marry a gay couple, not the state's choice. The recent outcry over this Indiana law highlights that it is just a matter of time before anti religion people try to take that power next, and forget that this country was founded on the concept of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

If the Methodists want to marry gay people, more power to them, it doesn't effect me in any way. If the state tells all religions that they are required to marry any couple no matter what sexes they are, that is wrong and against the first amendment.

Comment: Re:It's been repeatedly shown you are a bigot. (Score 1) 1055

by Coren22 (#49379631) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

Is it hate filled to say:

"The state should not define what the church does"
?

I am saying that the state redefining marriage is wrong as it is a religious ceremony, and as TFA is talking about, it is just a matter of time before the hate filled anti religion bigots decide that they need to tell the church that they will have to marry gay people even though it is wrong in their eyes.

But I'm the hate filled bigot trying to say that religion should be able to choose, and if the Methodists want to allow gay marriage, more power to them, but the state is FORBIDDEN from doing so by the first amendment, and now the state is going against the first amendment and telling people that their religious objections are meaningless, and that the state knows best.

You might want to work on reading comprehension as well. I have not a single time said anything hate filled. I haven't yet said that gay marriage is wrong, or shouldn't happen. I said it should be up to the church on if they want to preform a religious ceremony for someone who the religion itself says is sinning by even considering marriage. I am saying (as this law is trying to codify) that no one should be forced to photograph a gay wedding that makes them uncomfortable. That is called hostile workplace lawsuit. But there have been cases where a photographer was sued because they didn't want to participate. Is this right? NO.

If anyone is being intellectually lazy here, it is you. You have said not one thing in response to what I have said, you haven't made a point, you just state in a very lazy manner that I am a bigot without taking on any of the points I made.

Comment: Re:Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about same-sex marria (Score 1) 1055

Your sig is evil...

I agree on the rape angle, but it was implied that the men of the city enjoyed sodomy, and it was at least partially why the cities were destroyed. It is however very difficult to untangle, as it could be as much about dishonoring guests as it was about the attempt at forceful sodomy with the male angelic guests.

Comment: Re:It's been repeatedly shown you are a bigot. (Score 1) 1055

Again, you fail to read. I said it is not up to the state to define marriage, it is up to religion. I did not state any specific religion, or even any specific point of view. I merely state that it is up to the religions to define a religious ceremony, not the state.

I don't particularly care what an illiterate AC says about me, but at least learn to read, it is important in life.

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming

Working...