Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:How do you define anything? (Score 1) 1083

>Now go forth and read Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe before you climb up on that horse again. //

How about instead you provide examples of states [established in the Western tradition] adopting a common definition of marriage that encompassed homosexual couples? I'm sure we can rule out fringe cases of emperors dressing up boys as the concubine they murdered and insisting on having a wedding feast to celebrate their nuptials too, just to help you in choosing examples.

Comment Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score 1) 1083

>"there is no reason whatsoever that the law should permit e.g. visitation rights to a couple composed of a male and a female, but deny them to a couple composed of two males or two females" //

Here's your estoppel right back at you - what legal reason is there then to deny that right simply because the grouping is not a couple but a threesome or because the couple are close family? If it were about equality in this way wouldn't you expect the outcome to be even handed??

As it stands the reason states have historically supported marriages with better benefits and tax breaks and such is that heterosexual marriage provides a strong basis for procreation that supports the long term upbringing of children. So there is at least one reason, which sure you can pick some holes in (that can be countered) but is nonetheless "a reason" contrary to your assertion.

>"If certain individuals of a religious persuasion wish to consider homosexuality a sin, fine. They don't have to practice it themselves, or even associate with those who do." //

The mirror argument to this is if those who have homosexual sexual relationships want to marry they may, they just need to find an opposite sex partner, fine. They don't have to get married though, or even associate with those who do.

There is plenty in the Bible that contradicts calling same-sex couples "married". Redefining the word "marriage" by statute was not in any way required in order to provide "equal rights under the law", civil partnership accomplishes this without interfering with religious ideals. The ruling was about religion.

Comment Re:Making up bullshit studies befifits scientis (Score 1) 110

May cause harm in a scientific paper should mean they found evidence of harm but not at a sufficient level to say it was certainly from eating placenta. It should mean that they believe that further study will show there is definite harm. Instead it appears that they just made it up - they should then say "we propose a hypothesis for later testing that placentaphagy causes measurable detriments to health".

Comment Re:Problem solved! (Score 1) 158

Until very recently the trademark search from the UK government had office hours, it was turned off on weekends .. UK gov really don't seem to get how the internet works do they. Unless it's down for security problems then it should be up, presumably taking it down is necessary as modifications to the site aren't staged?

Comment Re:Define "Threatened" and "Unwelcome" (Score 1) 765

Doesn't BBT say that men working in STEM are actually just dumb kids but women working in STEM are intelligent, rich, well respected and never put a foot wrong? Bernadette and Amy never seem to make goofs or mope around like little kids but the men are so brainless they can't even fix themselves a meal or plan a vacation, it seems. Indeed the most brilliant can't just be an amazing scientist but has to be mentally deficient. Even the supposed "dumb blonde", Penny, merely has to look at the men and she has the idiots eating out of her hand.

Now that stereotype of men in STEM maybe has a lot going for it, but holding up BBT as supporting men as cherished scientific role models seems pretty far off the mark.

Comment Re:Normal women... (Score 1) 765

>*most people like to get through their workday without having to deal with a bunch of skeevy guys who believe wagging their dicks all over is the height of sophisticated masculine behavior.* //

Most [Western] countries have laws that make exposing your genitals to anyone at work, out of context, unlawful. In other countries you'd probably just be laughed at and fired. Both reasonable responses IMO.

In your own time however, most democratic countries will preserve your right to dance around and wave your genitals in private with like minded individuals no matter who thinks you're immature or "skeevy" [is that like slimy?].

Certain groups of men, and women, have different mores. What gives you the right to set the public standard of behaviour for everyone?

Comment Re:Animal House (Score 1) 765

>*the idea of a software repository, and open source projects, is that anyone can contribute* //

So because of this one project suddenly the whole repo is unusable or the whole idea of OSS is untenable?? Like because one guy flicked a booger in a restaurant now no one in the world can eat at a restaurant - the whole concept of restaurants is tainted and all chefs must commit seppuku?

On a wider view it could well be argued that you're simply trying to deny something inherent to the character of many males. Personally I'm not in to jokes about genitalia, and toilet humour but it seems pretty widespread amongst men and not entirely uncommon amongst women. So do we stop men being men?

Does this mean that women in majority female employment have to stop discussing soap operas and fashion - stereotypically female mores. If not why not, many men find them toxic and unhelpful and that a pre-occupation with such things excludes them.

I choose making strict - democratically agreed - boundaries within working environments, assessing work on the merit of the work, and leaving people who want to make adolescent jokes to do so as they please so long as they don't do it during work and it doesn't affect their performance.

Comment Re:New study? (Score 1) 274

In defence of Latin you can probably read it on monuments, tombs, and in old buildings in every major city in Europe; it provides loan words and base words for most European languages; it's useful for lawyers and historians at least; you can look intelligent by making quotes in Latin. /Ipsa scientia potestas est/. ;0)>

Comment Re:Common sense to you and me, but... (Score 1) 98

>He never actually said he wanted to ban encrpytion. That was the tech media taking some vague statements and running with it.
>He said that he wanted to make sure that the security services could read any communication.

So he doesn't want to ban encryption only useful, working encryption? Not sure that really changes anything.

Logically your alternative doesn't work - if I die and the password dies with me then SS can't read the communication. Even just making it a crime not to assist with decryption doesn't make the SS able to read communications. It can't be done without breaking privacy - it's an either-or; either we have private communications or SS can read any communications they wish (ie all communication's privacy can be compromised).

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...