Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Anthropometrics (Score 3, Insightful) 813

Because, you complete fucking genius, not everyone is 5' 2'' tall and of medium build. Why, if you are 6' tall, are you penalised with having to buy a more expensive ticket?

Because physics? Limited volume of space, all costs and profits must come from cargo (that's us) carried within that space. If some require significantly more room then logically it costs more to carry them and therefore it isn't completely unreasonable to charge them more. It's the same logic that's been applied to overweight people and which says larger hotel rooms cost more.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 465

by atriusofbricia (#46912791) Attached to: Lessig Launches a Super PAC To End All Super PACs

Money is speech when it is used to promote a political view.

No. Money just buys you a bigger louder megaphone.

The trouble is, with enough money, your megaphone can be so loud it can drown out everything else.

In many ways the issue here is not so much louder megaphones or anything but a lazy electorate that doesn't bother to do even basic research or acquire understanding of either the candidates or the issues at hand.

The loudest megaphone in the universe cannot actually compel the electorate to vote in any particular way. Stupid people following the crowds and paying the most attention to things that matter the least is the real reason why any of this matters at all.

As the man in the movie said, if you're looking for the responsible party you need only look in a mirror.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 465

by atriusofbricia (#46896523) Attached to: Lessig Launches a Super PAC To End All Super PACs

... so bascially you're saying that you want to live in a system where our politcians can be legally bribed. I don't think most people agree.

As others have said, you think that wasn't going on before? Bribery is still illegal and CU didn't change that. All it did is recognize that when I, or anyone, contribute money to a cause that is a form of political expression, i.e. speech.

You don't think Unions and other groups were doing basically the same thing before either under the table or through less obvious means? Personally, I'd rather all such activities be out in the open as simply banning them will do nothing but push them underground and into smoke filled rooms.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 465

by atriusofbricia (#46896507) Attached to: Lessig Launches a Super PAC To End All Super PACs

Money is speech when it is used to promote a political view.

It gives the wealthy disproportionate influence over governance. They have an established track record of setting up policies and institutions that are favorable to themselves and detrimental to society as a whole. That is not what free speech is for.

Only to the degree that regular people allow this to happen by apathy. Don't expect others or government to defend your views for you. That's never happened in history and there's no reason it should start now. If the wealthy have disproportionate influence over governance then it is because we gave it to them. The Bill Gates and others of the world can spread as much money as they like, but at the end of the day they get one vote and we get over 150 Million. Who really has the power here?

We would do well to remember that.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 1) 465

by atriusofbricia (#46896495) Attached to: Lessig Launches a Super PAC To End All Super PACs

No, it isn't speech. It's used to provide you with a podium, but a podium is not speech, and has never been seen as such since the beginning of the US.

It's amusing that the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that the government has the right to regulate the means, location or time of speech (see: Anti-abortion protest laws, regulating where a mob can protest a convention, or better yet, limiting where someone can protest a speech by PRESIDENT BUSH) and yet you teatards have an issue with the Supreme Court regulating the MONEY used to make the speech. It's stupid.

Much as I said in a previous post, if you cannot make your point without using terms like 'teatards' then you really lose the debate right there. Further, your post contains a number of presumptions not the least of which being that I or those holding my views would somehow see the CU case as 'good' and would also see the gross failures of justice concerning some other SCOTUS rulings on the Free Speech question.

Speech is expression. If I don't own or control a TV network then realistically in this day and age one of the best ways I can express my beliefs is via the spending of money. Either on a company, or on or against a political candidate/position. I still maintain that the Left didn't get busted up about such things when it was "their" side doing it and only got upset over the CU case because now suddenly the Evil Right can do it too.

Also, you think Obama doesn't have/use free speech zones and other sorts of non-sense then you're deluding yourself. If you think that I don't see both as a terrible affront to Liberty then consider yourself corrected.

Comment: Re:What is the point? (Score 3, Interesting) 465

by atriusofbricia (#46895145) Attached to: Lessig Launches a Super PAC To End All Super PACs

Anytime Congress passes serious reform, it gets struck down by a conservative Supreme Court that has no interest in reform and literally equates money with speech. The ONLY way to have serious reform that sticks is to...

1) Make sure Clinton gets into office in 2016, so she can appoint liberal judges once luddites and philistines like Scalia and Thomas are gone / die off.

2) Focus on an amendment to the Constitution that SPECIFICALLY says money is not speech for purposes of law.

That is it. Nothing else will do, because it will be OVERTURNED. Why is this so hard to understand, Lessig?

Sorry, you're wrong on many points but for the moment I'm only going to answer the cash != speech point. Money is speech when it is used to promote a political view. There simply is no other rational way to say it. The only reason the Left, of which you would appear to be one, are butt hurt about Citizens United is that the case has the effect of putting the Right on more equal footing with the Left's propaganda machine in the form of the majority of the media.

It was all good when Unions and various Left wing groups and causes could scream in the echo chamber but once CU broke the echo chamber and everyone could play now it is a bad thing. I'd think true Liberals, in theory those in favor of liberty one would imagine, would have cheered the ability for anyone to band together and form a PAC to promote their interests.

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374

by atriusofbricia (#46891309) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

The pro-rights side has history, logic and statistics on their side. The Anti-rights side has dick jokes, fear, racism and lies. Who should we really be listening to here?

Fox news of course. It will tell you all about those pinko commies who want to take your guns away. Protect you precious!

Well, that's slightly more tasteful than a dick joke but still not anymore of a thoughtful comment. Want to try again?

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374

by atriusofbricia (#46890261) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

... as usual go ape shit at slightest reason. Calm down morons, nobody is taking away you dick extensions.

There probably should be a debate rule much like Godwin's that says in any debate on guns or really anything else not actually involving such, the minute your side pulls out "dick extensions" or like phrasing you lose.

The pro-rights side has history, logic and statistics on their side. The Anti-rights side has dick jokes, fear, racism and lies. Who should we really be listening to here?

Comment: Re:Wait... wha? (Score 1) 1482

by atriusofbricia (#46634101) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

If you think same-sex couples should be discriminated against, you're a bigot,and debating bigots is as pointless as debating creationists or climate science denialists.

Point of order, surely you're not attempting to equate Equal Rights Under the Law with scientific disagreement. Surely you're not trying to say that saying that some people are more equal than others and disagreeing on anthropogenic climate change are the same thing. You're not, right?

One can be debated, the other cannot.

Comment: Re:What an asshole. (Score 1) 606

by atriusofbricia (#46346235) Attached to: 'Google Buses' Are Bad For Cities, Says New York MTA Official

So how do explain people coming in and building giant expensive buildings in the city? The number of condos going up in my hood is insane. I guess they didn't the memo about rent control stopping them from making a decent profit. Only like 2% percent of the apartments are rent controlled.

Have you even looked for a decent apartment in the city? Because usually people that say " only way you can get a decent apartment is practically if someone dies." mostly know the city from watching Seinfeld episodes.

I will admit I have not. Of course, that's because no one would be willing to pay me what I'd require to work in "the city" let alone live there. I'd prefer to live in the part of the US which respects all my Rights and not just the ones they feel like respecting today.

An admittedly quick bit of research indicates that for more than it costs to buy a house with an acre of land where I live you can get yourself a 1 bedroom 1 bath cracker box in various parts of "the city". I'd rather not pay more and get one quarter the space.

Also, when you say "the city" as if it is the only city in the world it sounds all kinds of pretentious and self-important.

Comment: Re:What an asshole. (Score 1) 606

by atriusofbricia (#46335491) Attached to: 'Google Buses' Are Bad For Cities, Says New York MTA Official

Cost of living in NYC, by which I mean a place to live, is sky high because of a combination of lack of physical space on the ground and rent control. There's no point in building giant expensive and nice apartment buildings when the government will just come in and force you to rent it out for far less than it ought to cost. Therefore supply is choked off, shortages result and the only way you can get a decent apartment is practically if someone dies.

Without rent control things would most likely still eventually get expensive because of lack of real estate but you'd also likely have people trying to build more options whereas right now what's the point?

Comment: Re:Business decisions should not be altruistic (Score 4, Insightful) 606

by atriusofbricia (#46335329) Attached to: 'Google Buses' Are Bad For Cities, Says New York MTA Official

make it worth their while. ... quit asking them to do things that are not in their best interest.

And that narrow view sums up the problem. Where is your sense of social responsibility? Or if not that, can you at least muster some enlightened self interest? You know, the thought that improving a neighborhood is in fact in your own interest, and that just moving into a neighborhood will improve it? That's assuming the business isn't one of those irresponsible sorts that sets a bad example by spewing pollution into the environment and then walking away from the mess they made, leaving it for the public or natural processes to clean up.

Except that spending my money to improve a crap hole neighborhood is almost certainly not in my best interests. It would cost far more money, have far greater risks and likely benefit me not at all beyond a PR move. Building a new corporate HQ in a blighted area is almost always going to be a moronically bad idea for nearly everyone concerned except the city which gets to tax you to hell and gone for the privilege. On top of that you're almost certainly going to have greater security concerns and far higher crime rates to deal with.

Can you imagine the recruiting message for getting new employees to work at said HQ? Come work in beautiful downtown Crimeville! AKs provided for your security! Only 12 muggings this week!

Yep, awesome idea.

Comment: Re:Based on what? (Score 1) 888

by atriusofbricia (#46252179) Attached to: Star Trek Economics

Out here in the real world wealth is created by the process of work and innovation among other things. Wealth is not this finite pool where if I have more then you have less.

What an idealistic little world YOU live in.

Out here in the real world, wealth is hoarded, scammed, and crushed from those who can't afford to defend themselves against well-funded corporate legal teams. The rich get richer. Everyone else gets the shaft.

The American^H^H^H^H^H^HCapitalist Dream is a lie. The statistics paint a pretty grim picture about our so-called "economic mobility". Sure it's there, but it's mostly in the downward direction.

You're right, wealth is not a finite pool. It's a seesaw with a endless buffet in the middle. The big fat asses on one end of the seesaw make sure that they continue to stuff their faces so more and more food comes to them while everyone else is held helpless at the other end watching the gluttony.

Bitter much? I and several people I know worked their way well into the middle, if not upper middle, class by our own hard work and talent after starting out anywhere from poor to dirt poor. You can take your defeatist attitude and go right back to the sad little world you live in and continue hating on those who can and do make something of themselves.

As wealth is not finite, thanks for conceding that right off the bat, it cannot be hoarded therefore my point is correct and everything you said is defeated by that admission. QED. If you think that the American Dream is a lie then that too is your problem. Those who come here every day to live that Dream don't need people like you trying to drag them down.

Most people in this world who are well off got there by hard work and talent. If you can't hack it, that's your problem and not one that is the fault of the system or anything else or would you rather just take from those who can create and make? What a sad, gray and terrible world you live in.

Comment: Re:Based on what? (Score 4, Insightful) 888

by atriusofbricia (#46246475) Attached to: Star Trek Economics

You could suggest that it's still scarcity, but defining scarcity on an individual or even local level is a bit strange given the fairly globally connected world we live in.

You mean... a scarcity which is not natural? Artificial scarcity?

People are poor because other people can be, and want to be, rich, at the expense of other people if necessary.

There will never be any such thing as a "post scarcity" economy until humans stop being humans.

So, in your world wealth is finite and if I have more then by definition it is because I, directly or indirectly, took it from someone that has less? What a dreary and depressing little world you live in.

Out here in the real world wealth is created by the process of work and innovation among other things. Wealth is not this finite pool where if I have more then you have less.

There will never be a post scarcity economy until we figure out a way for virtually limitless energy. Not very cheap, but limitless and the ways to use it to directly provide goods. That is what makes the Federation run and allows people to work more or less only when they want to. The combination of replicators and limitless energy, which at this point may as well be magic. Coincidentally magic is pretty much required to make any socialist utopia run for too long so I guess one ought not be surprised.

One thing that is never answered in the ST universe is why would anyone want to be a waiter in a restaurant (or similar service job)? They show them from time to time but the number of people who feel their true calling in life is to bring people food and deal with crappy attitudes is vanishingly small so where do they come from?

How many NASA managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? "That's a known problem... don't worry about it."

Working...