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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: This is great, however, (Score 1) 1083

Unfortunately yes, from a benefits point of view domestic partnership is only recognized for same sex couples. The company's reasoning is that there isn't any legal impediment to us getting married so we should just do that if I want to include her. With today's court ruling they may start treating unmarried same sex couples the same way.

Comment Re:This is great, however, (Score 3, Insightful) 1083

It could very well mean no benefits for unmarried domestic partners now that they have the ability to get married. Unmarried different-sex couples, myself included, have been in that boat for a while. I'm sure it varies from company to company but for example, I can't get my girlfriend, who has lived with me for years, on my insurance but if we were a unmarried same sex couple we could call it a domestic partnership and then I could.

Comment Re:Another great Scalia line (Score 2) 1083

It's dysfunctional things like the Electoral College which make we want to slap people who are overly patriotic about how superior our country is because of our government and laws. Sure, the founding fathers put into place a much better government that what it replaced but it's idiotic to think that they were perfect and that other Countries haven't been able to improve on those ideas in the past 200 years.

Comment Re:Welcome! (Score 1) 1083

A constitutional amendment just isn't going to happen and they are just blowing air (the same thing they've been doing for the past few years fighting Obamacare when they know nothing they pass stands a chance of making it into law). They simply don't have enough public support; MAYBE they did 20 years ago but the public is now in favor of equal rights for gay people. It would be easier to elect a Republican president who could appoint a more conservative judge when one of the current liberal judges dies/retires and then get the Supreme Court to reverse its narrow 5-4 decision.

Comment Re:And which law would you have them nullify? (Score 2) 257

And jury nullification is supposed to be for juries to nullify illegal laws (i.e. unconstitutional ones), not laws they might have a personal disagreement with.

The appeals process is how we overturn unconstitutional laws (Testing constitutionality is basically the Supreme Court's only job nowadays). Jury nullification is absolutely about overturning unjust laws whether the courts think they happen to be constitutional or not.

Comment Re:The Pirate Bay (Score 2) 302

So what you're saying is change the laws.

Until then ... it's stealing.

You are wrong. It's Copyright Infringement, not stealing. Don't agree with that? Get Congress to pass a law saying the two are the same thing. Until then, I'll defer to the Supreme Court (see Dowling v. United States (1985))

Comment Re:Price Is Not Relevant - You're missing the poin (Score 2) 339

How divisible are bitcoins? A bitcoin can be divided down to 8 decimal places. Therefore, 0.00000001 BTC is the smallest amount that can be handled in a transaction. If necessary, the protocol and related software can be modified to handle even smaller amounts. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#How_divisible_are_bitcoins.3F

Comment Re:This is why the equipment should be heterogeneo (Score 1) 137

or just buy premade servers from dell or HP. they aren't that much more expensive, the drivers are certified to work and you get real support

...and you're guaranteed that every shipment will have radically different hardware, despite having identical model numbers.

Sad but true. It makes it a PITA when dealing with disk images from one server to another.

Slashdot Top Deals

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.