The school encouraged everyone to go through Campus Safety rather than the cops, which is bullshit and should be illegal, but if the school had real cops, people would presumably call the real cops.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Tell me, how is that rational?
I don't get what you're saying at all. The government shouldn't be forcing anyone to participate in any event, regardless of whether you personally see anything wrong with the event.
so if I'm a county clerk whose job requires me to issue marriage licenses, can I be burdened because there's no way to avoid issuing a license to a gay couple if the state allows it?
If you're a county clerk* then you're acting on behalf of the government. MAYBE you could get yourself assigned to a different job with different duties than issuing out marriage licenses, but what you'd be asking for is for THE GOVERNMENT to be able to refuse someone service. BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS A MONOPOLY, they shouldn't be able to do that.
Forget cakes and wedding pizza--this has always seemed the point to me: it's a way to stop gay marriage regardless of the will of the people.
Indiana just passed law legalizing gay marriage. The RFRA doesn't overturn that law. It just protects PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS from dopey activists looking for paydays on bogus discrimination claims.
*I actually think it's a town clerk in most states. I got my marriage license from a town, not a county, in New York, and New Jersey has towns issue marriage licenses as well.
I then predicted how the case would turn out. Since anti-discrimination laws protect PEOPLE but not EVENTS, someone who will serve gay people, but not participate in gay events, would probably do OK in court.
In fact, we should do what it says in Matthew 22:21 and instead of putting "In God We Trust," we should a picture of the current President (so Obama for another year and a half, then the next guy) standing in front of the IRS Building.
Happy April 15th, everyone.
In a defense under the RFRA, the person claiming discrimination and the government will make their case before a judge on how necessary the law/tort is to achieve the legitimate purposes of government and how substantially the person being discriminated against is burdened.
In practice, this means that under the RFRA, a business that refused all service to gays would probably lose, but a business that refused to participate in gay weddings would probably win.
The reason you heard differently is because the people who hate religious people lied to you.
For example, "the car needs washed." Whatever this is, it's not English. The two correct options, of course, are "the car needs washing" (gerund) or "the car needs to be washed". Again, I'm almost embarrased myself.
I'm not saying this is right, but this isn't as recent a trend as you'd think. This construction has been part of the western PA dialect for a decent amount of time. Source: I'm from NJ and work with a lot of Pennsylvanians.
Microsoft has not contributed any useful code to the Linux kernel. Their "contribution" was drivers so that Linux could work on their hypervisor.
If you don't find the code useful, that's your business. But if Microsoft's view was that Open Source is a cancer that MS should be trying to kill, they wouldn't have contributed anything to the Linux kernel.
Also, I don't see how:
There's also a distinction between Free Software principles and Free Software tactics. rms is in principle in favor of all Free software, but would much rather that the main stuff was GPLed, and considers llvm and clang to be a loss to the movement.
is different from
Distributing source code under BSD licenses is bad for the GPL. That's wildly different from bad for Free as in Speech distribution of source code.
The actual BSD licenses being GPL compatible is a red herring. The reason they are GPL-compatible is because you can take that code and release it under a different license with different terms... such as the GPL. Contributions to the GPL version of the project then can't be licensed back into the original project. (Later BSD-style licenses have protections against this.)
One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote
So you know, there's a very good reason that the Constitution codifies that the government may not make laws "establishing an official religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Those two rights are much broader than "freedom to worship."
You sir, are a great astroturfer and deserve a raise from MS.
Well, just recently a very interesting article covering Microsoft "open source
Um... Mono is released under an MIT license, which is less restrictive than the Microsoft Public License. But here, take a look what Microsoft's Open Source license says in terms of them licensing you their patents on their code:
2. Grant of Rights (A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
I'm not going to reproduce Section 3, but the restrictions are: You don't get a trademark license or a warranty, you're not allowed to sue other licensees over your patents, you have to retain copyright notices that appear in source code, and you can't re-license MSPL code under viral licenses (e.g. the GPL).
If you want to see the full license, check out the OSI's site on the MS-PL
Now they seem to promise cross platform development again, but for how long? It wouldn't be the first time Microsoft changes strategy.
Well, Mono has been around for almost a decade now, and they AREN'T Microsoft. Microsoft submitted
In the same way, Microsoft has contributed some code to the Linux kernel. It's not a majority of the code, so they can't argue that you should call it MS/Linux or something dumb like that, and they didn't change the license on the kernel, so they can't show up and shake you down or anything.
Their contribution to Mono was of a similar size and licensing scope. Microsoft isn't going to show up demanding money for this if you use it.