Re: "serial port monogamist"
I hope one isn't firewire and the other USB!
-> Irreconcilable differences!
The Utah Attorney General's Office says marrying a laptop is not a constitutionally protected right, particularly if it's less than fifteen years old. Responding to a quixotic lawsuit that aspires to undo the US Supreme Court's recognition of same-sex marriage, David N Wolf, Assistant Attorney General of Utah, contends that …
I hope one isn't firewire and the other USB!
-> Irreconcilable differences!
That makes marrying a sheep* impossible! It's outrageous!
*: An alive one, at least.
Many of the Boyos that fancy sheep prefer them as mistresses.
If her indoors has a headache they have backup!
Many years ago I got involved in negotiations about purchasing an aging DEC PDP-11. The female computer engineer how was in charge of the beast was almost up in tears. And if we 'd asked her if she had wanted to marry it, she probably would have said Yes.
Well, at least you can't fault her taste in partners.
I slept with a PDP-11/04 back in 1979. NYC was pretty crazy.
The PDP (RT11) was busy printing a massive General Ledger on greenbar fanfold paper. When the printing stopped I would wake up and see what it needed. Another box paper or something more serious. Then back to sleep.
Earlier in the evening I would start a job then walk over to Times Square to grab a liter of German beer. Finish that off and go back in time to start the next step.
I also developed the Financial software that was producing the reports.
I was a DevOP before there were DevOps with a side of BOFH.
Oh yeah baby. Put that paper into me again. All the way like that! Yeah Yeah, you dirty stud you.
Some breeds can live up to 20 years - so don't give up hope
There really should be a law forcing idiots who file this sort of "lawsuit" to pay for the all the time they waste. How much time has the AG and staff wasted on this? How much court time will this silliness consume?
I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to file frivolous lawsuits, just that they should have to pay for their hobby, full compensation for the time they use up. Otherwise, the taxpayers foot the bill, and government already wastes far too much.
Who argue we should have laws making people pay the defendants' costs for frivolous lawsuits. Even though we have long had laws making people pay the defendants' costs for frivolous lawsuits.
Social trolls should be treated like patent trolls should be.
There is quite a bit wrong with that statement, where to begin:
1. You don't have to agree with the motives of these people to agree it is good they have the right to try to clarify law through a court of law and to want to uphold their right to clarify the law through the law.
2. Who is the arbiter of "social trolling" versus simply a different opinion? Having a society where there is social trolling, is certainly better than having a society where social trolling is disallowed. What kind of mechanisms would allow that and how could they look any different from despotism? The only answer I suggest is that you would devise a system of law that would end up looking very similar to the system that has given rise to this story.
3. They will lose their case, thereby the law will underline and protect legislation for gay marriage. That seems to me to be a good outcome and a good example of the law working well and in the interests of society and the intent of the legislation that has been passed.
4. There will have been demonstration everyone has recourse to the law but that these people have wasted their money simply through being idiots.
>2. Who is the arbiter of "social trolling" versus simply a different opinion?<
Currently, it seems to be the rabid left/feminazi/green/homosexual/globalist/humanrights Theocracy Cabal of Evil..
>Having a society where there is social trolling, is certainly better than having a society where social trolling is disallowed.<
Yes, it's a safety valve.
>What kind of mechanisms would allow that and how could they look any different from despotism<
There are no difference!
This is not arguing in the alternative (which is presenting one or more parallel lines of argument, each serving as a fall back to the main argument). This is reductio ad absurdam.
I'm honestly surprised their have been no serious attempts to marry a corporation. Persons in the eyes of the law, right? I don't see why it wouldn't work.
Given how individuals are treated by corporate "persons," I'm sure that the latter would respond, "Married? Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
Could be an interesting way of getting around the monopolies+mergers rules - have the corporations just marry
Many people have tried to marry corporations. Some have succeeded for a brief time period.
"I'm honestly surprised their have been no serious attempts to marry a corporation. Persons in the eyes of the law, right?"
Any moment now ...
After all, it's the US: you can actually apply for a patent of round corners and file a suit in a small claims court to recover $17.31 in expenses for a date gone awry.
It's just a matter of time.
>>"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
"After all, it's the US: you can actually apply for a patent of round corners and file a suit in a small claims court to recover $17.31 in expenses for a date gone awry"
Seriously? Next you'll be saying they have a president who makes up fake terrorist incidents at Bowling Greens and in Sweden, and when a real one comes along he spouts unhelpful, out of context stuff about the city's mayor?
It could never happen ....
the Useless States of Advertising:
Where Bonkers Means Business!
You are an example of the rabids!!
If corporations are legally persons, I wanna sue some past employers for their abusive behaviour towards me!
Does the laptop get a say in all of this?
O.K. Google . . .
I'm tempted to ask my phone "Cortana, will you marry me?" just to see what it says, but imagining it in my search history is just too mortifying.
Siri says "I sure have received a lot of marriage proposals recently"
Is this the same Chris Sevier whose license to practice law was revoked due to mental health issues? Or the same Chris Sevier who has had several restraining orders placed against him for stalking and harassment? Or the same Chris Sevier who had a warrant for his arrest due to failing to pay child support and violating restraining orders? Or the same Chris Sevier convicted of assault?
I'm not sure his laptop would want to marry him...
I have a couple of old lappies here, they may have met this man already as they are well fucked.
So what if I were running Damn Small Linux (2008) on my 80486 (1989)?
A lot of other peoples laptops. Does that make me some sort of deviant?
"Does that make me some sort of deviant?"
Depending on what 'a lot' means, maybe just overly promiscuous.
Have a good week-end.
No, just a doctor/surgeon.
>Ive been inside...
A lot of other peoples laptops. Does that make me some sort of deviant?<
No, just a masochist or PFY...
I would rather marry my bed. We sleep together every night...
I had a bunk bed, once. It worked for us.
Did you prefer on top or on the bottom?
This lawyer trying to pull off a False Dilemma fallacy isn't that entertaining. I've seen more subtle and elegant attempts on good ol' usenet.
"This lawyer trying to pull off a False Dilemma fallacy isn't that entertaining. I've seen more subtle and elegant attempts on good ol' usenet."
There is a... gentleman... who has posted 'OT: Same-Sex Marriage in the Light of Reason' on talk.origins last week. Apparently it's an effort to show that allowing same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to incest. In particular, according to the... gentleman, who is a math prof at the University of South Carolina if his sig line is to be believed, same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to gay incest involving elderly parents and their children-turned-caregivers.
I swear that I'm not making this up. Google Groups is your friend for those who want to see all 49 (as of the time I post this) replies in that thread.
name redacted 'cause otherwise El Reg's mods would kill this post.
Sounds like the marriage laws were badly written - possibly they got some of the Westminster legal drafters involved.
If a law on marriage doesn't start by saying something very like "marriage is a contract between two consenting, adult individual persons..." then it's badly drafted. That then simply excludes a) children (a problem in some states), b) corporations c) things d) animals and e) football teams or other groups of people. If you want to allow polygamy and polyandry then drop the 'two', but that does introduce some interesting complications for who gets a 'widows' pension!
Marriage is defined as much by precedent as by legislation. It's part of common law. Legislation tends not to define what marriage is so much as what marriage isn't.
Add 'human' in there somewhere to keep out the corporations
I'd marry the Mac - low maintenance, chic, cool-to-the-touch, doesn't fall ill often, is more amenable to letting you tinker under the hood, trendy, and is likely to be more succesful in facilitating the daily practicalities of a dual-income household :D
Is this bloke just insane and intent on making lawyers richer, or is he filing these cases on his own, wasting time and money, instead of taking his meds, as prescribed?
As the story says, he is doing it to attack gay marriage.
As when the Great British Buffoon (TM) said that "they" would be allowing you to marry dogs next
I am sorry sir you will have to stow your "wife" in the cargo hold.
Which is slightly better than having to 'turn on' your wife for the amusement of the border official.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017