Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:That proves it (Score 1) 567

You're not really doing anyone any favors by calling people "deniers." I get that you want to refer to people who hold on to skepticism by using a pejorative, but it's only going to have a polarizing effect, preventing those who were on or near the fence from coming over to your side.

Especially when the pejorative in question is a deliberate reference to anti-semetics who pretend that the freaking holocaust never happened, often with the side claim that they would like there to be one now.

Most people don't like to be associated, even in a small way, with a group like that.

Comment: Re:The REAL value of the transit system (Score 1) 170

I'm not 100% convinced it's the cars that are the problem. Sure, there is extra congestion from more cars and there is obviously a limit as to how many road of given width can support, but there are other users of the roads that I think may be the seeds of traffic: Bulk transport vehicles.

Without their slow acceleration and poor hill performance, the car traffic would be able to move at a fairly constant rate. Instead, whenever one of these vehicles attempts to merge in or climb a hill, its lane becomes obstructed. Drivers naturally attempt to route around the obstruction, spreading velocity differences into the neighboring lanes. Also, the flimsy rag they cover the spoil with is insufficient to prevent a comet tail of paint-scratching debris.

Bulk transport vehicles should not be in high-traffic areas during peak commute times.

Comment: Re:The REAL value of the transit system (Score 2) 170

I don't think the parent is arguing that taxes shouldn't pay for buses, but rather that the taxes that pay for it shouldn't be the targeted taxes like the gas tax, instead the money to subsidize the buses should come from the general fund, and the subsidy level should be something that people get to have a say in through the election process.

That's something I can get behind, for the simple reason that using the gas tax to subsidize buses is unsustainable: if it's working correctly it encourages drivers to switch to buses, carpool, and use more efficient vehicles (which is, in fact, one of the desired goals - get cars off the streets to reduce traffic and smog), but that means that the burden is now spread over fewer car-miles, so the tax needs to increase, driving more drivers to buses, until everyone is on the buses and where does the money come from again?

Comment: Re:They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone ri (Score 5, Insightful) 268

by zippthorne (#47340609) Attached to: That Toy Is Now a Drone

I'm not sure that the FAA has the authority to regulate the quadcopter in the first place, but the quadcopter-with-a-gun is certainly a weapon, so why wouldn't it be protected by the second amendment?

side note: To all those who say, "because that sounds super dangerous" the response is to draft a constitutional amendment to allow the government to regulate more things. Simply "interpreting" away the teeth of the second amendment merely encourages contempt of the constitution and all the other things protected by other clauses and amendments are sure to be abridged in the same manner.

Further side note: Perhaps it's me, but I've noticed over the past few years that while both congress and the people are interested in "regulating drones," both parties seem to have very different ideas about what will be regulated. Congress seems to want to regulate the use of drones by private individuals, but the clamor from the public seems to be about the use of drones by the state for surveillance or armed action. The whole thing is shaping up not unlike the calls for "immigration reform" where each party's ideas about what the reform should be are other parties' ideas about what needs to be fixed.

The only problem with being a man of leisure is that you can never stop and take a rest.