Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:religious intolerance (Score 1) 252 252

Had no idea what kapporot or shechitah was so I had to look them up. From what I read Shechitah is just another term for Kosher slaughtering and im going to guess your issue is with killing a chicken rather than someone giving away coins in Kapporot.

Therefore I'm assuming you are arguing that slaughter of animals for food via kosher means is materially worse that other methods. And materially worse enough that you think that attacking those people who follow that practice is rightly justifiable?

As for the circumcision of boys I actually agree with you. To me it is the genital mutilation of a minor and I believe it should be banned. One of my relatives is a neonatal nurse and she nearly had a baby die because of a botched circumcision. The rabbi hid that he had nicked an artery and kept just mopping up the blood.

Comment: Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score 4, Interesting) 252 252

The US started as a common law country and its basis was the UK system however it has diverged significantly and is recognised as having significant components of civil law.

At the federal level there is no plenary statute which means courts at a federal level are unable to create precedent without that precedent being challenged. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation.

This came to a head in the 1930s in Erie Railroad vs Tompkims. It also had the effect of showing federal courts had no authority over states if there was no federal impact.

In essence the US operates two types of legal systems. At a state level it is common law and at the federal level it is civil law.

Comment: Re:religious intolerance (Score 1) 252 252

Religious intolerance is already defined in other pieces of legislation and it would not stop you telling someone you thought they were brain dead for believing in a god. And they have every right to say you should convert to their faith.

Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (i.e., intolerance in practice). So this would be where you are attacking someone for exercising the practices of their faith. ie attacking someone for observing Ramadan.

Your signature says you live in a world of gray so I assume you can see the difference between those two things.

Comment: Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score 4, Interesting) 252 252

You are looking at this from the wrong perspective, which is understandable given the US and NZ have completely different structures for how their laws are built.

Firstly laws in common law countries tend to be much much broader than laws in a legislative country such as the US. The expectation is that the courts will take the laws and interpret them and them implement those laws in accordance with precedents set in related laws. If the government or another party doesn't feel that the laws were applied correctly then the outcome will be appealed, potentially all the way to the high court.

As for your assertion that the laws will be abused by the wealthy it just wont happen. The courts in NZ and Australia are fiercely independent and has no qualms attacking political appointments or positions. To get some idea on the level of backlash that can occur have a look at the recent appointment of Michael Carmody to the position of Chief Justice in Queensland, He lasted 7 months. So if a wealth person or politician were to try to abuse these laws I think you would see them come unstuck real fast.

Comment: Re:Slippery slope (Score 2) 252 252

As I posted above the bar for where something is deemed to be an issue will be determined by case law. Given NZ is a common law country they will build precedents around what is ok and what is not. The tricky period is now when legislation has been passed but there are not enough cases tried to know where things will sit.

Comment: Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score 4, Informative) 252 252

NZ is a common law country so over time case history will begin to determine what the courts will see as problem material and what doesn't. I also suspect they will start near the bar of what would cause a problem if it was published in newspapers or on billboards. Something I'm sure there is existing case law about.

Comment: Re:No (Score 1) 477 477

I have physical security where I live in that I am too far away from the road for 99% of devices to see my network and my neighbours are further away than the road. So in my usage case an open network is easy and I'm extremely unlikely to have a random leach on my network.

I haven't played with Windows 10 yet but all the things you have listed are all things I would want to remove as well. If only Linux Mint was able to run all my games and photoshop.

Comment: Re:No (Score 1) 477 477

What do you mean by incubator? I have images of 100s of baby chickens running around....

I have NFS shares which share media between a freenas box and multiple kodi front ends. Also stored on that is all the digital photos and camcorders that we have taken over the past 10 years. I am less concerned about people being able to access them then having someone delete something. Yes I could change permissions and everything like that but given my wife uses a windows box that gets painful fast. So Samba has read & write privileges which means someone with a phone could be an arse. (And yes it's backed up but I still don't want the hassle)

I realise that it is probably overly paranoid but I just prefer to not give anyone access that I don't need to.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?