Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 357

by AK Marc (#49761897) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage
I'm not keeping anything, or doing anything, or complicating anything. I'm stating that the rules are hard-coded into laws. Laws on property, inheritance, privacy, and everything else.

With your "marry anyone and divorce them anytime you want" rule, just marry everyone you do an illegal deal with. You can't be compelled to testify against your spouse. Divorce them after the deal, and the illegal acts are still under priveledged communication rules.

Abandon all that, and telling your wife that you hate the boss at work, can be used against you when they find that the boss was run over at work. So you either have to change millions of laws, or break the idea of "marriage" completely.

Which do you find preferable? Why?

Most people find it easy that they can have a single contract with no modifications or negotiations allowed (though separate property contacts, commonly called pre-nups, are allowed, though in practice, rare). The millions of laws written around marriage work together to define it in a contractual, legal, financial, and societal context. It may not be perfect, but it's better than abolishing a legal recognition of any relationships.

The law could very simply state (all laws regarding marriage are null and void. from this day forward the laws are as follows....

Yeah, and so the one law passed to do that is in what jurisdiction? Federal? They don't define "marriage" now, but put rules on it based on what the 50 states decide. So at a minimum, you'd have to have 51 states (DC is a "state" for most purposes), plus the feds, and get that 52 law bundle passed at the exact same instant for that to work. Plus, the "laws" in many places aren't laws, but regulations and administrative rules. Your "simple" law would have to change the IRS code, and hundreds or thousands of other federal regulations with weight of law. And the countless local rules on marriage. State law in Texas allows a minor to drink, under the supervision of an adult. So a 21 year old married to a 19 year old, can buy drinks for, and hand drinks to the "under-age" drinker. But that's not the same everywhere. Thousands of little things like that would make a massive change to the legal burden of formerly married people, once you abolish marriage, in the way you state.

You obviously don't even understand that, let alone have an opinion how it would work after. How does your one simple law fix under-age drinking law in Texas (a state matter) and the IRS code (not coded into law), at the same time?

"One simple law" change for multiple independent jurisdictions. With no understanding of law, or reality.

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 1) 295

We've got the 2nd largest european economy after germany (we overtook france recently) and one of the highest employment rates in europe, so I'd be interested to hear what your definition of "strong" is.

Must be the Conservative Conspiracy media that's covered in the international news. I hear about how hard the UK has it because their presence in the EU causes all the poor eastern European people to flock to the UK to steal all the UK jobs, working for peanuts and taking all the money out of the country when they are done.

England must be super-strong. They were claiming that Scotland would collapse economically if they weren't in the EU, just 9 months ago when the Scottish freedom was considered. So Scotland is hanging by a thread, on the edge of collapse. Or at least, so says England.

Comment: Re: Meh... (Score 1) 228

by AK Marc (#49761673) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

But hey, you don't see any real differences between reservoirs and rivers - and you spout complete nonsense about Dallas pumping water out of the Trinity and into city reservoirs

So, what feeds Lewisville Lake? Does Dallas pull drinking water from Lewisville Lake? Where does the waste from Gainsvile go?

You don't stick to facts, and don't answer direct questions. So I assume more distraction and smoke and mirrors, and no answers or discussion.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 357

by AK Marc (#49760813) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage
In the neo-natal unit, the rules were immediate family only, or others with written permission of the duty nurse, and even then, only breastfeeding mothers are allowed outside hospital visiting hours. In the geriatric unit, the rule was "anyone any time", even relaxing the official hospital visiting hours.

The hospitals set rules, but the rules aren't consistent across departments or duty nurses, and that will open them up to lawsuits, unless they have a simple written policy.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 357

by AK Marc (#49760783) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage
When you are too unconscious to name the person who is authorized, and they are out (at the movies, working, whatever), and it's bad practice to keep all possible papers on you at all times, they would be unable to prove it when they got there.

So a person with a matching last name is presumed family.

I've seen no plan that is remotely practical that would allow pre-identification of those allowed, and even when someone does set the rules, they are unenforceable. Your mother has the right to be in your room if you aren't conscious and ordering her out. Even with an iron-clad living will, family has the right to be involved, just like valid wills are challenged all the time by family and others.

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan