Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Expand your peripherals (Score 1) 1570

by Bodero (#46768503) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Why, when analyzing the 2nd Amendment, do these so-called "scholars" mince commas and words explicitly in the text as written in the Constitution to derive the intent of the authors?

Why do they not read the Federalist papers, in which the founding fathers mention an individual right numerous times? (28, 29, 46, which I won't quote because you can find a much better summary here.)

Why do they not read the state constitutions written around the time, that reflect, in similar language, also an individual right?

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

See the entire timeline here.

Listen, I get it. Stevens wants to amend the Constitution to revoke the explicit ordained right to possess firearms. Why lie about it and claim that it was never intended for individual protection?

Comment: Re:The important question is (Score 1) 330

by Bodero (#46482607) Attached to: What If the Next Presidential Limo Was a Tesla?

You couldn't be more wrong.

Dealers would love to sell Teslas, but Musk isn't allowing that - sticking to a factory-only model. If you were right, dealers would surely wish to sell Teslas in Texas, where it's illegal to go direct to the consumer, right? They wouldn't be competing directly with the factory there.

Dealers do make money in vehicle sales. Used moreso than new, but they absolutely make money on vehicle sales. The pre-2008 days of $5000 rebates and prices below invoice (and holdback) are no longer. No, it's not a fortune, but they do. And any good dealer will be making another thousand-plus in the finance office after the sale.

Their service department is important, and contributes to a metric known as "fixed absorption" - the percentage of profit the service and parts operation contributes as a portion of the total operating expenses of the dealership. If a dealership operates at 100% fixed absorption, that means their service and parts department completely pay all of the dealership's monthly expenses, and any profit made in new sales, used sales, F&I, or if the dealership has one, the body shop is pure profit.

You really think that a dealership doesn't want a new product to sell, one that will get brand new customers walking through their doors each month? BMWs, for example, already only require one service per year - so the trend towards less service is already occurring.

Comment: Re:I think $3.2B is too much (Score 1) 257

by Bodero (#45951211) Attached to: Google Buys Home Automation Company Nest

I own a Nest thermostat and while it's a great and innovative device I don't see the company being worth $3.2B.

To be fair, we don't know what products Nest has in the pipeline that only Google and their other investment partners know about.

Also, remember, Google Ventures was a big shareholder early on in Nest - they may effectively be paying themselves quite a chunk of change.

Comment: Re:Rule #1 (Score 3, Insightful) 894

by Bodero (#45695763) Attached to: How the Lessons of Columbine Saved Lives At Arapahoe High School

Fortunately, not only did the founding fathers author the Constitution, they also transcribed their struggles in each side fighting for what they believed belonged in the Constitution. These were called the Federalist Papers, and demonstrate how completely wrong you are.

Not to mention the numerous state constitutions at the time that were worded more bluntly regarding the individual right to bear arms.

Comment: Re:Amazon S3 (Score 2) 49

by Bodero (#45500375) Attached to: Cloud Storage Comparison: Benchmarking From Afar
Well, essentially that's the backend for Dropbox - they are a service built on top of S3.

However, if you don't need your files often, but rather just want a place to archive them, you can take a look at Amazon Glacier - an archiving and backup solution. You can even implement lifecycle policies inside your S3 buckets to automatically move files older than X days from S3 to Glacier, which is much cheaper.

Comment: Re:I've got a better idea (Score 1) 307

by Bodero (#45192857) Attached to: How To FIx Healthcare.gov: Go Open-Source!

there isn't some mystical open source fairy that can tell you how to correctly predict load for a system like this and make all the infrastructure work the way you want it to.

You mean they haven't built an infrastructure whereby you can design and build your software to support a near-infinite level of scaling?

If only we lived in a world where Amazon Web Services and their competitors existed.

Comment: Re:1000 lb gorilla (Score 1) 187

by Bodero (#44467529) Attached to: Geeks.com Online Shop Has Closed

Wall Street still keeps their stock price up because of rising revenues so Amazon can borrow money with impunity to make up for these losses. This allows them to keep dropping prices even when they are losing money. A small company cannot do this.

Sure they can, though likely they will do it through private equity, not Wall Street. The problem is that few small companies know how to dramatically increase their revenue by creating new industries like cloud computing, and reselling sunk costs like external fulfillment.

It isn't hard to raise revenues when you don't have to care about profitability or cash flow when setting your prices.

Do you really think Amazon doesn't care about profitability or cash flow? Do you believe their business model is, "Fuck it, sell it at a loss, Wall Street will bail us out?"

Comment: Shelf life (Score 4, Informative) 528

by Bodero (#44093619) Attached to: The Glorious Return of the Twinkie

with rumored shelf life on the order of the time span to cool a white dwarf to room temperature

From the AP:

During bankruptcy proceedings, Hostess had said that its overall sales had been declining, although the company didn't give a breakout on the performance of individual brands. But Seban is confident Twinkies will have staying power beyond its re-launch.


As for the literal shelf-life, Seban is quick to refute the snack cake's fabled indestructibility.


"Forty-five days - that's it," he said. "They don't last forever."

Comment: Re:2nd Amendment Question (Score 1) 551

by Bodero (#43742455) Attached to: A Computer-based Smart Rifle With Incredible Accuracy, Now On Sale

Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a firearm?


Does the 2nd Amendment allow (in your mind at least) a citizen to have a rocket launcher or a laser gun?

A good question and one that comes up often. The United States Supreme Court has actually clarified the answer to your question in Heller v. DC (2008):

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.

Basically, if a firearm is in common use and not unusual, it shall be protected, but no, the "rocket launcher" would be considered unusual.

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold

Working...