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

 



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

Comment: Re:USB 3.0? (Score 1) 75 75

No thanks, I prefer to have less latency. Also, no word on resolution, but unless it uses HDMI 2.0 or DisplayPort, it's not going to be HiDPI. Who would want a non-HiDPI, 30Hz screen these days?

You certainly wouldn't use it for gaming or watching videos, but for having a couple of documents open simultaneously? It's just fine. I used to use a 64MB USB GPU that would stutter horribly if there was any video frame within the monitor, but worked perfectly for displaying Excel or Word documents.

Comment: Re:It's *still* a stupid scare (Score 2) 379 379

First of all, Iran COULD NOT USE the bomb if it had one.

Why? 1. They can't bomb Jerusalem, which is as holy to them as to jews and Christians. Their own people would slaughter them. AND they'd kill most of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank. 2. Israel is smaller than the US state of New Jersey. At one point, I believe it's a total of ->17mi- wide. What this means is using the bomb *anywhere* in Israel means fallout on Jerusalem. 3. Following 2, it *also* means fallout on the Palestinians. 4. Oh, yes - the winds would mean that fallout would COME BACK TO IRAN.

Therefore, the ONE and ONLY purpose that Iran would want the bomb is MAD with Israel (who has a bunch of bombs, and would cheerfully use it on Iran, if they didn't think there'd be no Israel left afterwards.

Oh, yes, and with all the climate-change deniers here, *no* *one* could imagine that maybe Iran's worried about when their oil fields are played out, and planning to do things with the money while they have it to prepare for the future, no, no, that's *way* more than next quarter....

mark

Although I agree with your overall points and analysis that Iran, at best, wants a bomb for defensive Mutual Assured Destruction purposes, I will point out that they don't give a flying fark about the Palestinians. Specifically, Iran is 90-95% Shi'ite, while Palestine is primarily Wahhabi Sunnis. Although they're both Muslim, it's like Catholic vs. Protestants in Ireland. In fact, not just 'don't give a flying fark' - Iran would gleefully wipe out Palestine if they could, but that (i) prevailing wind and (ii) mutually assured destruction from Israel are insurmountable problems.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

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.

Yes and no... Opposite sex or same sex marriage is the same institution, marriage, and nothing changes when you change the genders of those involved. Polygamous marriage is a different institution, as you admit when you said "the question of marital property [in polygamy] is one of the issues that legislatures will have to address when the ban is overturned as it inevitably will be".

As a different institution, the fact that marriage is a fundamental right is irrelevant to whether polygamy is a fundamental right, any more than a right to marry being fundamental means that driving a car is a fundamental right.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

But, if you change, "spouse and spouse" to "a group of spouses", then how do you change "upon death of a spouse, the remaining spouse shall inherit 100% of communal property before probate"? As in, you die, and your three widows each inherit 100%? That's 300%. Where do you get two more identical houses?

Well, first, the spouse is generally only entitled to 1/3 of the assets and in some cases, up to a certain dollar amount in an intestate death. Wills and contracts normally supersede all that unless the widow(er) receives less than that amount in which they can contest the will (though usually not the contract).

But to answer the question, it would be the unit "spouse" that receives the inheritance. If there was three spouses, they would all have to act as one unit for the transfer then figure out what to do after that. It's no different than a company being owned by 20 people that dissolves or is somehow transferred. In fact, I have two minor stakes in partnerships that one says upon my death the companies will be sold and 30% of the value will go to the first heir in the estate of the deceased and the other says my stake is to be transferred upon death to the partners. Both of those will happen before any inheritance or probate takes place.

That is a fine and workable solution but it can't be done by simply changing the word "wife" or "husband" to "spouse". It would require a new statute that is similar to the above (or likewise based on the Uniform Partnership Act, which covers your other situation). That's different from simply enabling gay marriage..

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

According to the court's majority decision marriage is not about property and inheritance rights, but about love, spirituality, etc.

From the opinion:

Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 6–9; Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 8–29. Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law. See Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 15–16). The States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

"Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that. As of yet, you've simply ignored it."

I addressed that already, as have others. Inheritance, child custody, hospital visitation, all of that, all of your "substantive" issues can be addressed in a manner not unlike what is done for couples. We could have group tax filings. It's just more names on the forms and more W2s and/or 1099s. Estates can be split as with children when there are no surviving parents. Etc. Those are implementation details, those are not justifications for continued discrimination.

Weird. You quoted me and then you responded to something completely unrelated. You were supposed to try to poke holes in the logic of "marriage = gay marriage; marriage != polygamy". Instead, you responded that there are tax filings and estates and such. That's not in dispute - the issue here is (i) is gay marriage just "marriage" and (ii) is polygamy just "marriage". In fact, as you note, there are a whole bunch of "implementation details" that have to get worked out for polygamy but don't for gay marriage, which is why polygamy is not the same as marriage. But let's try again, just in case you got your wires crossed:

gay marriage is marriage. There is nothing different about it, except for the genders involved. Therefore, it's not a "new" right outside of our traditions, but the same exact and existing right. One can say "marriage is a fundamental right, and gay marriage is marriage, so therefore gay marriage is also a fundamental right."

Polygamy, however, is different than marriage. As noted above (remember, the part you keep trying to dismiss as administrative convenience?), there's a whole bunch of substantive issues that are different when there are two people compared to when there are three or more. It's a different institution than marriage, with more than just a simple gender difference. Accordingly, one cannot simply say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore polygamy is a fundamental right" any more than one can say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore driving a car is a fundamental right." They're different things.

Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that.

That's like saying, well.. a lot of forms already have Mr and Mrs on them and we'd have to change them

And once you do, there are literally no other changes to the laws. Not so with forms that you have to add "spouse 1", "spouse 2", "spouse 3", "spouse 4", etc.

... or child custody in many/most states favor the female/mother.

Nope. It favors the primary caretaker. That frequently happens to be the mother, but not always. The laws themselves, however, make no distinction between stay at home dads vs. stay at home moms. The "stay at home" is the important part, not the genitals.

You can't just say "x is marriage" and use that as a persuasive reason why it should be so.

Maybe you missed the two paragraphs explaining that. Not sure how, considering I've now quoted them twice so they've appeared in their entirety in three separate posts now. I have some theories, but... well... they're not kind.

As I stated in that context, I can also say "poly is marriage" but you'd refute that apparently.

"Apparently" you didn't read the post you replied to, twice. It's not that I would refute that, apparently, but that I did. Twice. It's quoted above a third time. Will you respond to it FINALLY or just admit you're a troll?

Large groups and couples are not similarly situated. The number of people in a group directly affects its ability to contribute to or participate in society. Large numbers of people have more votes than small numbers. They consume more resources. They can be in more places at once. "

Wow! Polygamists don't contribute to society the same way that a couple can? That's pretty much hate speech right there.

Yep, trolling. Or an imbecile. One of those two. My money's on the former, since you appear to be able to use a computer.

Seriously, you're arguing that recognizing that a large group of people has more votes than a small group of people is "pretty much hate speech". Well, that's "pretty much idiotic."

I can't imagine what's going through your mind to come up with that gem.

Well, first I counted to two. Then I kept counting. Then I realized that I had a number larger than two. That's "pretty much hate speech" in your world, apparently because anything beyond base 3 is tyranny or something.

Seriously, are you proud of your post? Because anyone who reads it is just going to shake their head at you.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

"The comparison you're trying (and failing) to make is that people were denying gay marriage because, as they said, "gay marriage" is not a fundamental right and not in our traditions, as if it was something different. It is not: gay marriage is marriage."

There it is finally. That's the point of contention. The last sentence is wrong. If it were true, then there never would have been any argument to the contrary.

Not so, plenty of people can argue that things are wrong when they are not. For example, you're arguing with me right now. The mere fact that people disagree doesn't mean something can't be true.

I can make the exact same statement: poly marriage is marriage.

Sure, you can make that statement. The difference is that I can support mine with logic, and you cannot. For example, in the post you're replying to:

gay marriage is marriage. There is nothing different about it, except for the genders involved. Therefore, it's not a "new" right outside of our traditions, but the same exact and existing right. One can say "marriage is a fundamental right, and gay marriage is marriage, so therefore gay marriage is also a fundamental right."

Polygamy, however, is different than marriage. As noted above (remember, the part you keep trying to dismiss as administrative convenience?), there's a whole bunch of substantive issues that are different when there are two people compared to when there are three or more. It's a different institution than marriage, with more than just a simple gender difference. Accordingly, one cannot simply say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore polygamy is a fundamental right" any more than one can say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore driving a car is a fundamental right." They're different things.

Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that. As of yet, you've simply ignored it.

I used the term bigot because I don't know how else to explain your position on this.

No, you used the term bigot because you're projecting. Let's see if I've got this right:
1. You are against gay marriage. Evidence for this is you saying my statement that gay marriage is marriage "is wrong".
2. You think that the arguments against gay marriage and polygamy are identical. Evidence for this is the fact that you've been arguing they're identical.
3. You think that I am against polygamy. Evidence for this is you calling me a bigot for being against polygamy (despite the fact that I've never said anything of the sort).
(and finally)
4. You think you can catch me being hypocritical because I'm against polygamy, but not against gay marriage, and the arguments are the same. Evidence for this is you saying that if anti-gay marriage people are called bigots, then you think that I should be called a bigot with my 'logic'.

But no. You're wrong on every count. 1 - gay marriage is marriage; 2 - it's not an identical argument with polygamy; 3 - I have no problem with polygamy; and 4 - I'm not a hypocrite.

Sorry, bub, but you're transparent. It's like you got your talking points from Rush Limbaugh.

You say you haven't said anything against polygamy but you won't acknowledge that it's the same thing. It is no less a fundamental right. Race isn't, gender isn't, count shouldn't be either going by the same logic.

Not at all. Here's the logic, broken down into short bits so you can understand it:
It's unconstitutional to treat groups that are similarly situated in different ways.
Blacks and whites are similarly situated. Race does not affect their ability to contribute to or participate in society.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are similarly situated. Sexual orientation does not affect their ability to contribute to or participate in society.
Men and women are similarly situated. Gender does not affect their ability to contribute to or participate in society.
(see where this is going yet? No?)
Large groups and couples are not similarly situated. The number of people in a group directly affects its ability to contribute to or participate in society. Large numbers of people have more votes than small numbers. They consume more resources. They can be in more places at once. Etc., etc.

That's the logic. Count clearly matters.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

I don't care what the court or the constitution say on this matter. Fundamental rights are not defined by the constitution, merely documented (or not) by it. That's why they're fundamental.

So you think a right is only fundamental if it's listed in the Constitution? I take it you never read the 9th Amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Comment: Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

It's also not a fundamental right, as polygamy is not part of the traditions

You've got to be fucking kidding. How does being "part of the traditions" have any relevance to something being a fundamental right?

Let me Google that for you.

[T]he court used the remaining 14th Amendment protections for equal protection and due process to "incorporate" individual elements of the Bill of Rights against the states. "The test usually articulated for determining fundamentality under the Due Process Clause is that the putative right must be 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty', or 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.'" Compare page 267 Lutz v. City of York, Pa., 899 F. 2d 255 - United States Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 1990.

HTH. HAND.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

"Note that you can't actually quote me ever saying that."

That's my summary of your opinion. Gays can marry because it's easy and we don't have to change much of the law. Polys and singles and any other arrangement can continue to be discriminated against because it'd be too difficult to afford them the same rights as others. Is that not your opinion? I'm not hearing voices, I'm reading your comments. Please clarify if I missed something.

Yep, you missed something. Please go back and reread my posts. If something still doesn't make sense, please cut and paste or use the "quote parent" button. I feel no need to keep restating something over and over when you clearly aren't reading it.

By that quote, you would refuse gay marriage because it was not a tradition nor was it ever a significant part of our "collective conscience". Your reasoning here is absurd!

Nope, marriage is part of our traditions and collective conscience. As a fundamental right, it can't be denied to gay people. Polygamy is not, and therefore is not a fundamental right. The reasoning is consistent.

The comparison you're trying (and failing) to make is that people were denying gay marriage because, as they said, "gay marriage" is not a fundamental right and not in our traditions, as if it was something different. It is not: gay marriage is marriage. There is nothing different about it, except for the genders involved. Therefore, it's not a "new" right outside of our traditions, but the same exact and existing right. One can say "marriage is a fundamental right, and gay marriage is marriage, so therefore gay marriage is also a fundamental right."

Polygamy, however, is different than marriage. As noted above (remember, the part you keep trying to dismiss as administrative convenience?), there's a whole bunch of substantive issues that are different when there are two people compared to when there are three or more. It's a different institution than marriage, with more than just a simple gender difference. Accordingly, one cannot simply say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore polygamy is a fundamental right" any more than one can say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore driving a car is a fundamental right." They're different things.

And finally, before you continue throwing around that "you're a bigot" name calling bullshiat personal attack, realize that I haven't said anything against polygamy. In fact, I think it would be a fine thing to legalize. All I've said is that there is not an equal protection or due process analogy between gay marriage and polygamy because - as repeatedly and thoroughly noted above, despite your inability to read - they are not the same institution, any more than driving a car is the same institution as marriage.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

You're still arguing convenience over rights.

Nope. Not once. Note that you can't actually quote me ever saying that. That should be enough to show that you're not actually arguing with me, but rather with the voices in your own head. You should really get that checked out.

3>2 was addressed well by another user, but it's a classification not unlike "one man and one woman". Your equal protection argument breaks down because "one man and one woman" always held true for every adult, whether man or woman.

Again, with no quoting. Do you even know what "my equal protection argument" is? You can't very well refute it if you have no idea what you're arguing about. Let's start from the beginning, but this time without you trying to put words in my mouth, okay?

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

In both cases - and in many others - the laws have to change. That's not true for gay marriage, where literally nothing but the label on a line on a form changes.

So now whether you get a legal right depends of whether it's convenient to make appropriate alterations to existing statutes? Good to know!

Are you trolling? Please let me know before I waste more time. That has nothing to do with what I said, and if you're going to fight strawmen, you can do that on your own.

What I said - as you noted when you continued quoting me - was that unlike polygamy, gay marriage changes nothing in existing statutes. It is literally the same, except for the genders involved. Polygamy is different, due to the fact that existing statutes assume a single inheritor or legal proxy. Accordingly, a gay couple is situated similarly to a heterosexual couple, but a group of people are not situated similarly to a couple. In equal protection law, it is unconstitutional to treat people situated similarly in different ways without a sufficient justification. It is not however unconstitutional to treat people situated differently in different ways.

And what law would the LGBT crowd need to write? None, as noted above. Literally nothing changes in existing laws when there are two spouses, regardless of their genders. Not one single law is different. If you don't believe me, then go find one that has to be changed. I'll wait.

You obviously have no clue about marriage law. Many states still have plenty of laws on the books and legal precedent that is based on gender assumptions, particularly involving child custody (and often favoring the mother). Gradually, these have been changing and sometimes actually ruled discriminatory... but there is still stuff out there.

As noted above, those are already unconstitutional. And despite your "you obviously have no clue" protestations, you haven't named a single law that has to change. Instead, you just backpedal:

And regardless of laws existing NOW, I can tell you things were a VERY different story a generation or two ago.

We're talking about NOW, not a generation or two ago (you know, back when marital rape was legal and interracial marriage was not). And actually, since this is in the context of legalization of polygamy, we're talking about the FUTURE.

But your argument that we should restrict fundamental rights based on the fact that it would be too hard to change all the damn marriage laws is not only

a complete and utter strawman that was not my argument. You're trolling. Enjoy having an argument with yourself, since it's clearly not based on anything I said (hence why you don't actually quote me, but merely say "your argument".

(By the way, I'm NOT taking a stand in favor of polygamy/polyamory, though I don't much care what people want to do with their lives. But that doesn't make your argument any less wrong.)

Correction - your argument that you claim is my argument. If you can't quote me, then stop pretending you are.

Comment: Re:Why should the government write these contracts (Score 1) 1082 1082

Because we don't want property passed between siblings probate-free?

Why? Just because we want to charge taxes? Probate restrictions based on marriage are yet another archaic issue that needs significant reform, given the changing shift in marriage.

Yes. It helps prevent the establishment of a hereditary aristocracy. Feel free to argue for those.

Go re-read the post you're replying to. It explains why marriage places obligations on a bunch of parties who never signed any contract. Even if you bundle contracts, that still doesn't apply to people who never signed them.

Sure it does if the government says it does... just like it currently does for marriage.

Then it's not really just "contracts," which is what you were proposing. So, just to be clear, you're now proposing that the government replace marriage with a bundle of rights and obligations that they will enforce on third parties? Like, say, marriage?

Or do you think that the government's extension of marriage rights to homosexuals today somehow can just be ignored by those 3rd parties? No -- if the government says X union with bundle of contracts Y is a "marriage" that entitles everyone to previous "marriage" rights Z, all third parties who grant rights Z would have to subscribe.

Of course, this is all a pipe dream. It's never going to happen in my lifetime. But it we were serious about putting marriage law on a rational basis, this is the kind of thing that should happen.

I have literally no idea what you're proposing here. Can you rephrase?

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.

Working...