Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Constitution and multiple parties (Score 1) 71

by aitikin (#48453783) Attached to: DHS Set To Destroy "Einstein" Surveillance Records

There is no such "favoring" anywhere in the Constitution. We have multiple parties and, in fact, one of them was — the Whigs — once strong enough to gain major chunks in Congress and the Presidency.

Uh, have you read the 12th Amendment? I quote the first relevant section, "...if such number [of electoral votes] be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed..." by definition forcing it to mean 50.0000001% or greater (AKA a majority). So, if 3 candidates are in the running, one gets 10%, one gets 45% and the other gets 45%, no one wins. Following that scenario, "...the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President..." means that, whoever has the majority most members in the OUTGOING House, will (almost undoubtedly) have the winner. Therefore, we would have to magically elect at least a reasonable percent of third parties to have even a REMOTE chance of a third party mattering. Frankly, the 12th is one of (if not) the worst amendments created, not only permitting the focusing of parties, but downright endorsing it.

What confuses many people — including, it seems, yourself — is that in the US we do not vote for parties. We vote for individuals. The individuals may or may not choose to affiliate with a particular party, but such affiliations are not binding. An elected lawmaker can quit/join any party without any official consequences to his position.

I'd thank you to not put words into my mouth, nor attempt to extract thoughts from my mind. I have not voted for a party, ever, in my life. I have always voted for whomever I felt had the most reasoned decisions, the most education, and the most experience as to whatever posting they were applying for.

Comment: Re:Elections have consequences... (Score 1) 71

by aitikin (#48452727) Attached to: DHS Set To Destroy "Einstein" Surveillance Records

all the stuff that also happened under a "conservative" president.

Lets not beat around the bush. This has little to do with "liberal" vs "conservative", this has more to do with "democrat" and "republican". Not ideaologies, but formal organizations with well defined leadership and central planning. They are both guilty in varying degrees.

Honestly, what is amazing is that if you watch the "third party" debates, across the board, all canidates involved are dead set against this sort of thing. This includes the Greens, Libertarians, and even pretty standard conservative "Constitution Party".

And people wonder why I feel we need to amend the Constitution to stop favoring the 2 party system...

Comment: Re:But DC is different,no? (Score 2) 588

by aitikin (#48317853) Attached to: Marijuana Legalized In Oregon, Alaska, and Washington DC

It's still Federally illegal. Even in any state that it is "legal" it can still be prosecuted. It won't be under the current president, but that can change in 2 years.

Mod parent up. Even if it is legal in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and DC, it's federally illegal. I would be surprised to see the DEA crackdown on it, but legally, they could. Obama has stated that this issue is not of major concern to him and will not be seeking prosecution.

Comment: Am I dense? (Score 1, Informative) 191

by aitikin (#48087235) Attached to: DoJ: Law Enforcement Can Impersonate People On Facebook

I thought that law enforcement had always been allowed to do this in sting operations and the like. The police are under no obligation to tell the truth when confronting a potential suspect. Yes, their wording to her may have been deceptive, but, frankly, I don't have much faith in someone saying, "Yes I gave them consent to use my photos, but not like this!" It sounds a good deal like buyer's remorse.

If the officer in question were reasonable, he would have used images that are in public record of her, so I can see the outrage to that portion as reasonable, but, frankly, I don't see how this is terribly surprising and front page news.

PS...since when is BuzzFeed considered to be even remotely a reputable news source?

Comment: Re:Then eBay can become a bank. (Score 2) 76

by aitikin (#48028981) Attached to: eBay To Spin Off PayPal

"Then eBay can become a bank. "

Since July 2007, PayPal has operated across the European Union as a Luxembourg-based bank.

But within the US they are not considered a bank, allowing PayPal to freeze funds of US citizens with no legal reason or ramifications. Additionally, point to make towards the OP, PayPal has owned Bill Me Later for a long time, and have been lending for years.

Comment: Re:Dupe? (Score -1, Redundant) 330

by aitikin (#47908201) Attached to: Microsoft To Buy Minecraft Maker Mojang For $2.5 Billion

Haven't we seen this story before?

That was speculation where as this is fact.

Okay, I see now, maybe because the full amount has been publicized. I'm just a little curious why so many Minecraft stories have been bubbling to the front page recently.

This is /. I see them as so many M$ stories and suddenly it makes sense.

Comment: Re:ELI5 please (Score 1) 354

by aitikin (#47840891) Attached to: DMCA Claim Over GPL Non-Compliance Shuts Off Minecraft Plug-Ins
Actually, that's not quite right. From my understanding, Bukkit, a separate plugin that is dependent upon the Server, was created using GPL. As such, Bukkit itself should be GPL. But saying that the Server should be as well, that's like saying because I wrote a GPL piece of software for Windows, Windows must be GPL'd.

Comment: Re:*Dons asbestos suit* (Score 1) 1262

As far as I can tell, both of you are making mountains out of molehills.

That being said (yes, I'm going to help with that mountain, let me pull a car analogy), if I said I have no interest in driving, you would fault me as a liar when I mean I have no interest in driving a semi and would love to drive a Shelby Cobra, so I kinda gotta side with i kan read on this one. I don't think you would go ahead and defend my example as imprecise so much as lying (I clearly have interest in driving, just not one specific style of it). She clearly wants to play games, just not shooters. I'm not a huge fan of shooters, so it's perfectly reasonable to me to think of being a gamer without playing shooters.

This isn't a "knee jerk" reaction, it's a logical statement.

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...