Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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: Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1059

You do realize, don't you, that the federal courts have, with the exception of two circuits (and the Supreme Court smacked down the reasoning used by Judge Posner in the 7th circuit - so it really means only one circuit is an exception), found that using the courts in a private suit constitutes government action because the judiciary is part of the government. In other words, the Federal RFRA would be applied in the same exact way as the Indiana RFRA would - as a defense raised before the court because the court could not rule on the case because it would involve government action in contravention of a person's sincerely held religious beliefs? The Indiana version merely codifies this rule. So no real difference here. This one issue swallows both of your "differences" because 1.) The government becomes an actor once it comes to court and 2.) The Federal RFRA becomes essentially an affirmative defense because of #1.

Actually, IMHO, the Indiana language raises a serious "Entanglement" question. Of course, the law in its present form is untested; so we have no idea whether that will be the case (no pun).

But, the Term of Art "Intervene" is used, as it is in a Federal False Claims Act ("Qui-Tam") case, not to refer to the Judiciary performing its usual duties of "interpretation"; but rather when the Government actually becomes a PARTY to the case-in-chief (in the case of the FCA, the Plaintiff, and in the case of RFRA, the Defendant(?)). Otherwise, the Government would ALWAYS be considered a Party in EVERY case, and of course that is patently ridiculous.

And besides, it is clear by the plain language of the IRFRA that it is primarily intended to be used as an Affirmative Defense not by the Government; but by the "real" Defendant(s).

Comment: Re: Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1059

You HAVE to TYPE some of the words in all caps, otherwise people won't KNOW you're a raving LUNATIC.


I just get tired of manually typing in style tags, and so revert to the old non-styled text way of providing emphasis.

And so what, exactly does that have to do with the content of my post, Mr. AC?

Comment: Re:Brilliant idea (Score 1) 190

But, it has been nearly seven years since the iPad 2 came out; in "tech world", that's quite a long time

The iPad 2 was released in mid-March 2011, it is now end of March 2015. How are you calculating that to be nearly seven years? It's only just hit 4 years.

That's what I get for not checking my facts!

I TOLD you I wasn't a fanboy...

Comment: Re: Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1059

After seeing Gov. Pence on a This Week interview, I have to think he's one of the slimiest governors I've seen interviewed.

I am embarrassed as hell to be a Hoosier.

And as far as I'm concerned, this picture, of the PRIVATE Bill-Signing Ceremony for IRFRA, (Press and Public not invaded!) says it all.

Comment: Re:Brilliant idea (Score 2) 190

Problem is that after a couple of years it runs dog slow, iOS8+ on the iPad 2 is pretty much unusable despite the claim that it is "supported".

I must admit I have been avoiding updating my iPad 2 to iOS 8, because I am concerned about that very issue. But, it has been nearly seven years since the iPad 2 came out; in "tech world", that's quite a long time,

If only the Apple fanboys could make their point without having to resort to bashing Android...

I'm a "fan"; but no "fanboy".

I work with Windows all day. I write Windows application software all day. My work laptop is a Samsung, running Windows 7. I have to deal with and do Admin stuff on several versions of Windows Server, from Server 2003 through 2012 R2. I'm a Certified SQL Server Admin. Blah, blah.

So I know the difference.

But you are right; at best, my jab was off-topic. At worst, it was as boorish as the daily onslaught of Apple-Hate that AC after AC spews on these pages.

And so, I will apologize.

Comment: Re:Brilliant idea (Score 1) 190

It'll stop being upgradable when Apple decides to stop making upgrades for it. That'll either be due to too small flash memory and too poor hardware to handle what they want to do, or it will be due to their desire to stop supporting it because they don't want to.

True enough; but if Apple follows its usual pattern, everything from the SECOND-generation will be upgradeable for several years.

I do agree that their track record on upgrades of FIRST-generation devices is not so stellar; in fact, it's almost as horrible as the typical Android upgrade lifespan...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Comment: Re: Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1059

The Indiana Law is NOT "The same as what Obama Signed". Not even close. For one thing, the Federal RFRA had Bipartisan support. The Indiana RFRA was voted STRICTLY on Party Lines (guess which Party?).

Context matters. This is what I was responding to and clearly he seems to suggest that because the vote was not bi-partisan, then it is not like the Federal law. The margin by which it passes does not affect the actual text of the law itself.

Wrong. That's not what I meant.

The actual text of the law differs in some significant ways.

I agree that a good portion of the law is the same as the Federal version; however, the bit about using the IRFRA as an "Affirmative Defense", and the fact that the STATE can actually INTERVENE to act as a Co-Defendant/Amicus PARTY in a CIVIL case are pretty substantial differences. True, they don't take much words; but the EFFECT could be HUGE.

Comment: Re:Oh come on (Score 1) 190

this is just a good way of dealing with a shortage of a product availability (since there's such a proliferation of combinations) and minimizing returns of a high wear prone item. It's not supposed to make it seem like you are visiting your personal jeweler at tiffanies.

And, I would imagine, minimizing the inventory "shrinkage" (theft). It's FAR too easy to rip-off something like a watch when a salesperson is distracted (by your accomplice).

Comment: Re:Brilliant idea (Score 2) 190

I agree. apple users are snobs who define their identities by showing off their gadgets. I don't go near that, this is why I have a nexus one and moto360 writs watch along with a galaxy tab and chromebook on which I'm running Linux.

You do realize, of course, that what you just described is also a form of snobbery, too. One that is far too common on Slashdot.

It's that "...on which I'm running Linux." that really points out how 1337 you think you are.

Comment: Re:Brilliant idea (Score 1) 190

And that's where we start to diverge. I don't think that the iWatch will continue to do the things it was sold to do. I think that Apple will modify the services or protocols down the road and this first-generation iWatch will start losing features as it's now not compatible with the new way the services will be provided. My Accutron won't need an 'upgrade' unless we switch to metric time.

Well, I'm not sure about the iWatch yet; but, at least in the case of the First Generation iPod (2001), the legacy "sync" support seems to be going strong.

Fourteen years of protocol support is pretty damned good, period.

Comment: Re:Brilliant idea (Score 1) 190

And an iWatch will also continue to do the things it was sold to do. The software will not be upgradeable, but neither is the Accutron.

And once again, I will point out that Accutron was made obsolete by quartz. Bulova abandoned it.

How will the software in an Apple Watch not be upgradeable?

There's this new thing called Flash memory. Look into it.

Haters gotta hate...

Comment: Re: Christian Theocracy (Score 3, Informative) 1059

"For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense."

Bullshit. A statute of limitations is just that ... it is a LIMIT, not an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE.

Bzzt! WRONG!

From the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Rule 8(C):

"(C) Affirmative defenses. A responsive pleading shall set forth affirmatively and carry the burden of proving: accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process or service of process, the same action pending in another state court of this state, and any other matter constituting an avoidance, matter of abatement, or affirmative defense. A party required to affirmatively plead any matters, including matters formerly required to be pleaded affirmatively by reply, shall have the burden of proving such matters. The burden of proof imposed by this or any other provision of these rules is subject to the rules of evidence or any statute fixing a different rule. If the pleading mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation." [Ind.Trial.Rule 8(C), emphasis added].

Here's another definition of "Affirmative Defense, specifically referencing "Statute of Limitations".

"Affirmative Defense" is a "Term of Art", idiot. Learn what those words mean (all of them).

Comment: Re: Christian Theocracy (Score 0) 1059

So you believe that the intent and text of a law is different depending on who votes for it?


You need to learn to read.

The Indiana RFRA is different from the Federal one because it is different. As in "different words with different meanings."

It is the pro-RFRA crowd that is saying "Nothing to see here. Same law as was passed 20 years ago."

But it isn't. And THAT'S the DIFFERENCE!

Got it?

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.