Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It's crap (Score 1) 1220

by unitron (#46776405) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

The whole point is for the citizens to be able to form a militia in order to defend themselves from their own government...

Are you quite certain that that was the intent of the authors, and not a viable alternative to a standing army, or some other reason? The whole point of the Constitution with the establishment of elected representation and restrictions on the powers of the federal government was to have a functional government from which the populace would not need to defend itself. Were they expecting that one amendment to deter a government which ignored the rest of the text?

Comment: Re:But what is a militia? (Score 1) 1220

by unitron (#46776343) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

No, because then they cease to be militia and have become regulars.

Oh, btw, why a well regulated militia? so that they were capable of holding their own against regulars. Just an FYI.

I would think that well-regulated would include "could reasonably be trusted to obey the chain of command and not just decide for themselves who to fight when, where, and how, and to not be as big a threat to the general populace as any invading army".

Which is why the Second doesn't start out "A bunch o' likkerd up good ol' boys with shootin' irons, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1220

by unitron (#46776263) 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.

The wording of the Second Amendment is not particularly clear, period. Unfortunately.

But we do know that the authors were pro-militia in large part because they were very nervous about the alternative--a large standing army.

The world and technology have changed so much since then that I'd be very nervous about our not having a somewhat large standing army.

Comment: Re:perception (Score 1) 112

Shantytowns are symbolic of failure,

The failure doesn't disappear just because you make the shantytown illegal. All that accomplishes is make the people who lived there even worse off, for the sake of letting those who didn't pretend the problem doesn't exist. And in a way, it doesn't: a "failure" implies an unintended undesirable consequence of some decision or policy, while demolishing the homes of worst-off members of society for the sake of appearances is an intentional, deliberate action. It confirms that you are okay with this outcome, of treating people like garbage to be thrown aside and disposed of if they aren't economically useful; in other words, you haven't failed, you're simply evil.

Comment: Re:Skateboard comparison = fail (Score 1) 89

I suspect that the hover mechanism could do a fair bit of the work; but I posited additional elements because it would be a bit of a downer if the hover mechanism were tuned too far in the direction of being a good thruster/steering element, since you'd be walking a potentially touchy compromise between being capable of aggressive maneuvers and being inherently stable, rather than liable to assist you in tipping over even faster and harder that gravity would cover if you leaned too far out of the equilibrium position.

Just for the sake of consumer safety and not reducing bystanders to hamburger too often, the preferred arrangement would probably be some sort of EDF/Vectored thrust arrangement: all the advantages of a standard electric propeller (ambient-temp exhaust, none of the noise and fuel-line hassle associated with teeny internal combustion engines, runs on normal batteries rather than some sort of hobby fuel); but no exposed blades to do surprising amounts of damage upon somebody's first mistake.

You'd have to avoid going too deep into propeller-beanie-chic zones of absurdity; but if you could get the actually-hovering bit worked out, I suspect people would overlook that for the chance to zoom around at dubiously sensible speeds.

Comment: Re:A solution (Score 1) 700

Threats have to be followed through. One of the reasons why I don't use threats. Mostly because a threat always also includes the option to avoid it if the other party changes its behaviour.

By the time I ponder what to do to someone, he already did enough to have forfeited the chance for a choice.

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.