Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 0) 1109

by damn_registrars (#46768395) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

I believe our founding fathers left it that way in the event out own government became tyrannical.

A lot of people like to make that argument, but I don't see it holding water. Why would you need to write in an amendment to assist in the overthrow of a government? Those actions need to be taken by people who are devoted enough to their cause to be willing to suffer the consequences of failure. The United States was established by a revolution that had a very real chance of failure, and that failure would have very likely lead to the execution of many of those who participated. They didn't need a law to assist their efforts, why would anyone else?

And on top of that, the government was intended to be elected, which is itself supposed to be a mechanism for the people to use to throw out bad leaders. If they wanted to initiate the American Experiment of democracy, why would they write in a mechanism to subvert it?

Comment: Militia, then vs now (Score 3, Insightful) 1109

by damn_registrars (#46767725) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment
When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.

Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.

And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot. That is why we see this as a front page story bashing the person proposing the re-examination of the second amendment.

Comment: Getting closer to one side of the argument? (Score 1) 6

I pointed out before that your "rodeo clown" argument is diametrically opposed to your "evil dictator" argument. Nobody can be both a "rodeo clown" and an "evil dictator". If you are arguing that our country is in some sort of fetal position, that implies that you are gravitating away from the latter and more towards the former.

However, most of the conspiracy theories that you so enthusiastically advocate for in the hopes of bringing about an early end to the Obama Administration go out the window when you call him a "rodeo clown" as they negate the possibility of him being actively involved in any such actions.

So which is he?

Comment: Re:Simple problem, simple solution (Score 1) 326

by hackingbear (#46762991) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

NIMBY is an unavoidable phenomena in advanced economy. With enforcement of environment protection laws, you can be sure of hazard over development and pollution, like in China for up to now. Then once it became a significant problem, people would rise up and complaint and started creating/enforcing environment laws -- China is now at this stage. Then once there are sufficient laws, some people will then start abusing the laws to protect their own interest, thus NIMBY -- even China now has had quite many large scale protests against building chemical factories in their neighborhoods.

Can people stay the middle way and be rational? No, and will never. The two extremes will have to fight and the pendulum will swing back and forth. That's why the Yin-Yang symbol is not gray colored but spinning black and white. Therefore, there is nothing to worry about. People will fight their way to balance in the long term.

Comment: And scooters are f**kin' magical! (Score 1) 163

I have noticed that motorized scooters have been granted a status in some places of "absolutely magical". It is apparently legal to park them at no cost at bicycle racks, even if they prevent actual bicycles from parking there. They are, by association, legal to ride (or at least, push) on the sidewalk as well. You can carry whatever or whoever you want with you on it, seldom need a proper helmet, and if you have enough power you can go ahead and drive on the freeway as well. They generally need less insurance and registration to boot.

Why bother with a bicycle at that point? We don't really embrace fitness in this country anyways.

Comment: Missing feature: who tows there (Score 1) 163

I would pay money for a parking app that can tell me which towing company tows cars from there. Where I live, car theft is 100% legal if you are a towing company - it has been demonstrated repeatedly on camera and in court - and some companies are far more frequent offenders than others. I am willing to pay more to park in lots that are not patrolled by certain crooked towing companies.

Comment: That isn't what a CSci degree is for (Score 4, Insightful) 283

by damn_registrars (#46747065) Attached to: Bachelor's Degree: An Unnecessary Path To a Tech Job
CSci degrees, at nearly every university in the US, are programming degrees. If you aspire to do tech support (or really much of anything other than programming) you are wasting your time with a CSci degree. Don't get me wrong, it is a very useful degree to have, but it is not generally a path towards doing computer support (nor should it be).

Now, that said, a lot of support techs clearly would benefit from more formal schooling - but it could be done in a less cost and time consuming manner than a 4 year degree.

Comment: Re:It may work for German (Score 1) 428

by Tanuki64 (#46743939) Attached to: Is Germany Raising a Generation of Illiterates?

That's ridiculous. There are so many exceptions that it does not even make sense to speak of 'rules'. And most rules a so fuzzy that they are no help at all. Best way to write is to learn each word like a vocable in a foreign language. Leave everyone alone who tries to tell you about 'rules', e.g. most teachers.

Comment: Congratulations, you're halfway there (Score 1) 21

by damn_registrars (#46742037) Attached to: Democrats playing the race card? Surely as the sun riseth
You found an elected democrat who used the word racism in a sentence. That's better than almost anything you have provided so far. However you insist that this comes up in response to people criticizing President Lawnchair. Can you point to what he said that in response to? The FoxNews link you gave (yes, I actually clicked on it) does not. He was interviewed on CNN state of the union, so you would be better off citing this instead

I can find the quote in there, but he is not responding to a specific GOP statement or person. You have repeatedly claimed that allegations of racism come up "whenever Obama is criticized" but this doesn't even seem to be in response to anyone criticizing Obama, as best I can tell. He's talking about the immigration bill that is not coming up for a vote in the house. If you don't want to connect immigration with race, you can make that decision for yourself. However, connecting this to someone criticizing Obama is a pretty large leap of faith.

Comment: Re:Can the writings be read? (Score 5, Insightful) 428

by damn_registrars (#46741633) Attached to: Is Germany Raising a Generation of Illiterates?
Language rules are critical to communication. Eventually if too many linguistic rules and word meanings are discarded, communication becomes essentially impossible as statements don't have the same meaning to both parties in the discussion. There are some rules that don't make a lot of sense, but they are what they are and mostly need to be adhered to in order to ensure that communication can happen.

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne