Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 2) 905

by mrchaotica (#46769701) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

What nonsense. The Constitution does not legitimize sedition.

Bullshit. Laws which prohibit sedition are unconstitutional. Wikipedia quotes several Supreme Court cases:

In the seminal free speech case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court declared, "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." 376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964). In a concurring opinion in Watts v. United States, which involved an alleged threat against President Lyndon Johnson, William O. Douglas noted, "The Alien and Sedition Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with them forever ... Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution."

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 905

by mrchaotica (#46769583) 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.

On April 16, 2014, the militia is still the last defense that the people of the United States have against tyranny perpetrated against them by their government.

Comment: Re:Simple problem, simple solution (Score 1) 316

by mrchaotica (#46769439) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

Your example is irrelevant because:

  1. 1. We're talking about a chronic, ongoing issue, not a special-event-one-day-per-year one.
  2. 2. If homeowners let people park on their laws every day, it would kill their grass
  3. 3. Such a thing can't happen anyway, because dense parts of San Francisco like we're talking about here don't have lawns big enough to park on.
  4. 4. Even if such a solution were physically possible, it would certainly violate San Francisco ordinances (zoning code etc.).

More to the point, the fundamental problem here is that street parking (which is what you end up with without forcing the developer to build more via regulation) is a commons, and no private actor (entrepreneur or otherwise) is capable of "fixing the problem."

Comment: Re:Simple problem, simple solution (Score 1) 316

by mrchaotica (#46766807) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

("Fiscally optimal" meaning the amount where the marginal cost of building another parking space (MC) equals the marginal revenue from building it (MR).)

Surely that calculation would include the externalized cost of more competition for on-street parking the developer would be imposing on the neighbors... right?

Yeah, I thought not.

Comment: Re:Someone doesn't understand devops. (Score 1) 197

by Jesus_666 (#46765913) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer
The configuration "Developers - DevOps - Operations" makes sense. Unfortunately, a lot of companies just remove everything but DevOps from the picture because having dedicated developers and admins around would just be redundant.

I'm in such a company and its a hellhole - you can get emergency calls at any time of day because you're responsible for the infrastructure but that's not reflected in your pay because hey, you're just a developer. Also, keeping the infrastructure running flawlessly is not supposed to take any time away from coding; you're expected to fix any problems that arise and still get eight hours' worth of quality code done. Ater all, developers in other companies have no trouble doing so. Also, since support personnel is also redundant (because hey, the DevOps guys already know how the system works) keeping the customers happy is also the developers' job, again without compromising efficiency in your other responsibilities.

Of course the company is not doing well and of course the boss has no idea why. It can't be his management style; that approach worked well when he ran a similar company in a related market ten years ago with no existing customer base so obviously it would work now, too...

Comment: Are you kidding yourself? (Score 3, Insightful) 598

by smitty_one_each (#46765473) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy
Do you really think Citizens United magically transformed the U.S.? Really?
The House of Representatives has been frozen in size since 1910.
Since 1913:
- The IRS has eminent domain over your wallet.
- Your state, as such, is essentially voiceless in DC, now that Senators represent their parties.
- The federal government just borrows it forward to inflate the stock market and bind future generations in debt.
Blame Progressivism? Darn right I do.
Folks, it's time for a http://conventionofstates.com/

Comment: Re:Foreign policy is a shambles...? (Score 1) 21

by smitty_one_each (#46761743) Attached to: Democrats playing the race card? Surely as the sun riseth

while saying I'm for it

I'm not sure where, in this thread, I have asserted any positive allegiance on your end. It's possible that I've done that elsewhere, I suppose, but I'm afraid I don't recall where.

They have proven their "moral turpitude" by taking the same money and pushing the same austerity.

I think the austerity is happening, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Note the smaller portions at restaurants.

That does not require me to supply you with "alternatives". I am simply pointing to the sign that says "bridge out".

This is slashdot. Nobody is ever required to do anything at all here.

Ignore at your own peril, and continue to play the victim card. The system cannot work without a submissive, non-thinking crowd who believe they have no alternative.

I'm just kind of chuckling here at "I am simply pointing to the sign that says 'bridge out'" followed by "crowd who believe they have no alternative".

At a sufficiently high level of abstraction, you're akin to Sri Mick Jagger, belting out "I can't get no satisfaction". Shall we read your double negative literally, and deem you satisfied, or take the spirit of the lyric, and deem you still seeking the satisfaction? This many decades on, did the seeking, itself, become a destination, affording some meta-satisfaction?
Trying to serve it humorously, sir, but I find you a crapflooder, albeit less tedious than ram_degistrars.

Comment: Re:Marginal costs (Score 1) 20

by smitty_one_each (#46761583) Attached to: REPOST: Brandon Eich

Any reasonable society would recognize that the cost of living for the 2+1 group is higher than the 2 group, and set progressivity in the tax rate to reflect that.
Now, I know some people see it as a subsidy because they don't want children and don't see why other people should get a subsidy (etc), but it isn't one. Trying to get as much money out of parents as a non-parental couple is ultimately (1) a getting-blood-out-of-a-stone situation and (2) going to result in malnourished, poorly educated, badly brought up kids. Moreover, kids don't stay kids. Eventually they grow up. And they'll pay taxes.

These arguments are not "reasonable". I can't find an "reason" based arguments to venture beyond heterosexuality. Political arguments are not infrequently based upon stoking envy along sexual, racial, historical, and material lines.
Politicians demagogue, and low-information voters vacuum it up.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...