My ideas:
- The vast majority of part time and professional entry level jobs require employees to pay to work there, so most resort to taking out loans to pay for it and end up having debt because of it.
- All retirement saving accounts are banned, and fiscal conservatives view retirement as something for lazy people.
- Mandatory military conscription.
- More things paid for by tax dollars are privately operated. If your house burns down or your kid goes to k-12 school, you'll need a loan.
- The criminal justice system lacking the procedural court trial protections in the bill of rights (want a lawyer? Better take out a loan.).
- The house of representatives is capped even lower, so there'd be 200 representatives instead of 435.
(As seen on Facebook)
Utahns above any other state should be familiar with the history of marriage within the United States as it has been a central figure in many of the important evolutions of marriage laws in the US.
Monogamy became an established principle somewhere between the 6th and 9th centuries in European countries due to pressure from the Catholic Church. Fidelity was not an expectation, but rather promiscuity by the male partner.
1215 - The Catholic Church declares that partners had to publicly post notice of impending marriage. This is the first form of marriage licenses, but it wasn't until the 1500s that any documentation was needed and largely involved the transfer of property rights and social power. It stays this way for the next 300 years.
16th Century- The Protestant Reformation establishes rules for marriage and it first becomes an official function of the government, claiming marriage was a wordly thing, not a church function.
1620 - The Mayflower arrives in what would become the United States and brings with it Puritan ideas of marriage being a civil contract, not a religious ceremony.
1724 - Article VIII of Louisiana outlaws marriage between slaves.
1769 - American colonies establish their first marriage laws. By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.
1787 - The US constitution is ratified, but makes no mention of marriage or family, despite the Puritan belief
1830 to 1890 - Women are granted the right to own property in their own name, and not under their husband. This occurs state by state starting in Mississippi.
1855 - Missouri v. Celia declares that it is legal for a slave owner to rape his black slaves.
1862- Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed by Abraham Lincoln. It specifically targeted a group of citizens largely of the Utah territory for their marriage practice of polygamy.
1865- Mississippi makes it illegal for blacks to marry whites, punishable by life in prison.
1875 - Page Act bans the immigration of East Asian women to the United States or its territories so that the Asian male immigrants providing cheap labor on the transcontinental railroad could not establish families.
1880 - age of consent was established to be age 10. Only applied to girls.
1882 - Edmunds Act makes polygamy a felony. I
... keep reading on reddit β‘1 - George Washington (1732-1799) - 67 years
2 - James K. Polk (1795-1849) - 53 years
3 - James A. Garfield (1831-1981) - 49 years
4 - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) - 46 years
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 57%. (I'm a bot)
> Forty of the world's largest music festivals-including SXSW, Coachella, Pitchfork, and Bonnaroo-have gone on the record to promise that they will not use facial recognition technology at their events, following a campaign launched by musicians and activists to ban the technology.
> "It's so important that people don't just learn about how scary and dangerous surveillance technology like facial recognition is but also learn about successful efforts to stop it," Evan Greer, the deputy director of Fight For the Future, a digital rights rights advocacy group that spearheaded the campaign, told Motherboard.
> Biometric surveillance companies and venture capitalists have identified music festivals as a huge potential market for facial recognition technologies, which can be marketed as a way for concertgoers to bypass long lines.
> Following the campaign's demand that Ticketmaster terminate its relationship with Blink Identity, the ticket distribution giant issued a statement in late September, saying "Ticketmaster is always exploring new ways to enhance the fan experience, and while we do not currently have plans to deploy facial recognition technology at our 'clients' venues, rest assured, any future consideration would be strictly opt-in, always giving fans the right to choose."
> Despite this victory, facial recognition technology is rapidly expanding into other spaces, including gas stations, shopping malls, casinos, schools, and airports.
> In 2013, Boston Calling was the test site for a secret facial recognition pilot program run by the Boston Police Department, which subjected thousands of unwitting music fans to face surveillance.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: facial^#1 technology^#2 recognition^#3 surveillance^#4 company^#5
Post found in [/r/Futurology](http://np.reddit.com/r/Futurolo
... keep reading on reddit β‘On January 1st, 1900, the United States gains access to your phone and your music playlist (Spotify, iHeart, Pandora, Apple music, etc). How are they able to use the information provided from the songs to better the country or the world itself?
Rules
-
Your phone will never run out of battery until January 1st, 2000
-
The government can not use any of the technology from your phone to reverse engineer it. They only have access to your music playlist and nothing else
-
The Government can choose to withhold the knowledge from the public or they can share it with the world. It doesn't matter
-
The government can not prevent anything that happens to the artist. Basically, the US can't send a bunch of security guards to make sure John Lennon doesn't get assassinated. If something happens to the artist, the government has to let it happen
Rounds
R1: There is no artist name, song name, or release date for the song. They can only listen to the songs and nothing else
R2: They get the name of the artist, song, and the release date of the song
R3: Along with the names, they also gain access to artist bios and genius lyrics
Is there any way that your playlist is able to alter history and change the world for the better?
"Get government out of my bedroom!" and "What right does the government have to tell me what to do?" Despite these sentiments, the government has imposed regulations. Here is my short summary/timeline:
| Year | US Supreme Court Case | Primary Result |
|---|---|---|
| 1878 | Reynolds v. United States | Upheld laws against polygamy. Declared that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. Implied endorsement that state/federal governments had an interest in regulating marriage. Also, religious expression had limits. For example, Genesis 22 could not be used as a defense for rituals that involved human sacrifice. |
| 1965 | Griswold v. Connecticut | Declared a personal right to privacy in certain intimate activities. It said married persons should be able to purchase/use birth control devices and birth control pills. |
| 1967 | Loving v. Virginia | Struck down anti-miscegenation laws. Declared that the race of either the man or of the woman applying for a marriage license cannot be regulated in the state interest. |
| 1972 | Eisenstadt v. Baird | Declared that states cannot regulate the sale of birth control devices and pills to unmarried persons. |
| 1973 | Roe v. Wade | Declared a woman has a right to obtain an abortion up until the time that a fetus is independantly viable. |
| 1996 | Romer v. Evans | Declared that state laws must be based on a legitimate state interest. This struck down a Colorado law that had attempted to restrict governments from declaring homosexuality a protected class. |
| 2003 | Lawrence v. Texas | Declared a person's sexual privacy to include oral sex and other non-procreative sexual activities between consenting adults, regardless of gender, to be covered by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. |
| 2013 | United States v. Windsor | Struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote that the law has "...no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." Individual appealate courts began ruling t |
)