Yeah, this is one of those "feature not a bug" things that's been known for some time. As others have pointed out, sign your commits if this bothers you. It's even possible to get your fellow open source contributors to sign commits to your project, as we do with the Metasploit Framework: https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/wiki/Landing-...
Except for the LIBOR scandal, of course. And the ISDAfix mess. But those only involved most of the world's largest banks, and combined, likely only affected anybody seeking credit, anywhere, for any reason.
I once worked for a startup in the education industry. One day, when Blackboard released a new product that directly competed with us, we noticed that their new logo was an obvious, clearly intentional rip-off of our own. It was actually gratifying, as a group of mostly recent graduates, to so clearly have threatened a billion dollar company.
This is awesome, thanks for the github link! I wonder what service is providing the data -- the lack of back-end in the repo and need for Web Workers makes me think it's something external. A brief tour of the source makes me think that the clue would be somewhere in satellites.js, but that is a doozy of a file.
As a lawyer, could you explain how denying over 1,000 federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples would be offering them equal protection under the law?
First, this is not what laws were challenged.
The laws that were challenged are very specific.
As roberts says, "petitioners’ lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically"
Had they challenged benefits laws, that would change the equal protection analysis significantly.
But in this lawsuit, given what they've actually challenged, the normal precedent would be to apply the rational basis test, and nothing stronger.
Again, i'll quote roberts, who quotes lawrence:
"In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between
opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to
the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the
traditional institution of marriage.”" Lawrence, 539 U. S.,
at 585.
(Now, you could argue this isn't a legitimate state interest, but that's a pretty resolved question at this point, and would require overruling about 200 years of precedent on the issue :P)
The majority doesn't even bother to argue otherwise.
Second, the vast majority of the opinion does not rest on any equal protection claim, and not even the majority takes that argument seriously on these facts given the above.
In fact, the majority doesn't even explain how their argument that this is correct works. They don't even spend a paragraph explaining it, just make a conclusory statement.
So to answer your question, i don't claim what you are stating would in fact, be offering equal protection, but will point out
A. This isn't actually the case before the court
B. Resolving that case does not require declaring states must issue same sex marriage licenses. It would probably require that those validly marriage be given the same benefits.
SCOTUS is supposed to go out of it's way to not resolve questions not before it, and when they do resolve questions, they generally resolve them in the least sweeping way possible.
All of the precedent on the issue of "marriage" was made with the understanding that marriage meant a union between a man and a woman. Both the majority and dissenting opinions in today's decision acknowledged this fact.
Loving v. Virginia was struck down because it sought to arbitrarily hinder this right. However, gay marriage is a very different issue, because it seeks to expand the right to more people.
Well, as the history of this country has been one of expanding the scope of rights to encompass more people, rather than one of limiting rights to only apply to folks that think and act like the majority, I'm for it. The only time we tried to limit rights with a Constitutional amendment (prohibition), things didn't go so well.
I would also take issue with your framing of this case. I view gender as just as arbitrary a hindrance as race, especially given that the "Biblical definition of marriage" also dictates things like how one should treat their sex slaves. It's also worth noting that it was religious conservatives that were also raging against the decision in Loving v. Virginia, because it violated "traditional" notions of marriage.
So, what's the difference between an "arbitrary hindrance" and an "expansion of rights"? Who gets to decide? Which one is allowed, in your view?
For others who were also interested, the "over 1,000 federal marriage benefits" figure comes from a United States General Accounting Office report to Congress, updated as of 2004.
Atom is a graphical editor, unlike either Vim or Emacs. It's much easier for web developers specifically to work on, since it's built with web technologies, rather than vimscript. If I want to change the background color of the file browser pane, I can pop open an inspector, identify the element, and change my custom editor CSS, all within about 2 minutes. Its plugin distribution system also integrates directly into the editor - meaning I can browse for and install plugins from within the Atom itself.
Isn't reading books a good way to build fundamentals? I don't think reading a book necessarily precludes you from working on the exercises in that book, which would indeed be a great way to build your understanding of a language. This is the way I approach learning new languages - working through a tutorial, or, indeed, a book. Giving someone the advice, "Hey, just go write some JavaScript," probably isn't great if they don't know any JavaScript.
