If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   The first ever Maker Faire hosted by the White House will happen later this year. President Obama will be on hand to let everyone know they didn't make that   (news.cnet.com) divider line 199
    More: Obvious, White House, Maker Faires, First Lady Michelle Obama, White House announced, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, East Room, State of the Union, free world  
•       •       •

3039 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 10:55 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-05 03:36:09 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wellon Dowd: This, ladies and gentlemen, is why God invented the internet: http://renfaireboobs.com/

Good god those are some violently ugly women.


I find it helps if I scroll up until the chin is just peaking down from the top of my monitor.
 
2014-02-05 03:38:01 PM  

willfullyobscure: CheetahOlivetti: baconbeard: anfrind: Z-clipped: someonelse:

What would you suggest re-naming Maker Faires so that people know they are attending that and not, say, an RV show?

They used to be called "craft fairs". Without the old-timey final 'e'.

Craft fairs are typically much smaller events, and they are devoid of the electronics, explosives, and other things that make the Maker Faires so much fun.

They should be called "People Who Bought an Arduino and Managed to Wire it Together Based on Some Schematic They Found on the Internet or in Make Magazine and now Consider Themselves Equal to Nicola Tesla" Fairs. But I guess that doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

When you're at the beach, do you kick over kids' sand castles?

I stand with baconbeard.


We used to call it "a hobby" and millions of americans created, tinkered, invented and made cool shiat in their garages and workshops, and nobody needed to call it "a movement" or wrap a shiatload of phoney baloney politicophilosophical nonsense around it.


Do you know these people literally call each other "Makers"? They have Makers' Meetings to talk about how cool it is to make stuff while not actually making any stuff. Make Magazine and others blatantly encourage this crap to drive ads and sales. they are snowflakes to the absolute max and INCREDIBLY annoying about it.


It's at least as bad as the Tactical Retards Trend that mean every moron wants to owns an AR-15 and thinks he's Seal Team 1 in digital BDUs at Walmart. Reminds me of when a bunch of social rejects decided to start calling themselves "Brights" because they could blog and take online IQ tests.


I've got an idea for you- how about actually knowing what the fark you're talking about?
 
2014-02-05 03:38:43 PM  

nymersic: //also, all you people turning this into politics...


welcome-to-fark.jpg
 
2014-02-05 03:50:26 PM  

nymersic: Z-clipped: Artisan

Wow, the comments here are amazingly clueless...
This didn't all start with "Maker Magazine", this all started with the hackerspace "movement" about a decade earlier.  Then some political correctness-obsessed morans decided that the term "hacker" involved too many negative connotations and that's the reason they didn't get the attention they wanted, so they looked for another term, and someone came up with with the sterile "maker" (ugh, always hated it).  These things are a lot more than craft faires, and comparing them to such is a bit silly.

So, btw, we're primarily talking about the oldschool meaning of "hacker" here, ie., people who take one thing and creatively modify it to suit another purpose, often in a very technical way.  Yeah, most of the stuff is arduinos and 3D printers, but it's generally far more elaborate than your average garage tinkerer's creations.

/been a member of the Buffalo hackerspace for 5 or 6 years... went to the first two NYC Maker Faires, and I still think they charge too much to enter :/
//also, all you people turning this into politics...


Yeah, they used to call those "hobby clubs" before the fancypants marketing brigade showed up.

Even the hackers did.
 
2014-02-05 03:51:47 PM  

dywed88: 2) A necessary part of a functioning society is that every generation pays costs to develop future generations.


Unless you're a neoconservative, in which case you cut your own taxes, and in the process run up a huge debt and then palm it off on your kids.
 
2014-02-05 03:53:52 PM  

redsquid: Z-clipped: someonelse:

What would you suggest re-naming Maker Faires so that people know they are attending that and not, say, an RV show?

They used to be called "craft fairs". Without the old-timey final 'e'.

I've been to a lot of craft fairs and they don't have robots, blacksmiths, ham radio hobbyists, taxidermists, game developers, musical instrument makers, math geeks, cosplayers or many of the other fields covered by a maker faire.
I'll be the first to admit that the term 'maker' is kind of awkward, but it's a catch-all that describes what we do pretty well. We are, however, here to do more than just make stuff. The fairs and other maker gatherings are for sharing our hobbies with other folks face to face. It's a great chance to network with like-minded folks and introduce noobs to what we do in a fun, encouraging environment. Unlike craft fairs where the focus is on selling things, our focus is on sharing what we do and how we do it. Most of our exhibitors don't sell anything- they just come out because they love what they do.
Our local fair has grown over the past few years and allowed us to build a community. We recently partnered with our local library system to open a 10,000 sq. ft. maker space. We will have a computer lab, an electronics workshop, a full production shop, an A/V studio, art space and classrooms. With schools falling behind and dropping art, shop and other elective programs we hope to step in and provide these kinds of educational opportunities, not just for kids but for the whole community.
I'd also like to point out that the name 'Maker Faire' is a registered trade mark of O'Reilly media. They charge an ever-increasing fee to use the name while giving very little support for the individual local fairs. Don't be surprised to see similar events with different names as people get fed up with the corporate overlord. Our next event in Tampa is called MakerCon. We kept 'Maker' because it's recognizable but at least we dropped the silly extra ...


img.fark.net
 
2014-02-05 03:56:48 PM  

Phinn: In Option 2 (earning it), wealth comes about because people pay for what they get, and don't rely on this attitude of endless guilt and debt and obligation. Earned wealth comes about because of trade. Productivity. Savings. Surpluses. Exchange. Quid pro quo. Contracts. Market alternatives -- if you don't like what I'm selling, you're free to find a better deal elsewhere.


Exchange?  Do you mean some sort of regulated system of currency?  What recourse do you have if someone commits fraud against you?

Trade?  Where do you think those roads, bridges, tunnels, and airports came from?

Savings?  Why, that would require a system of banks, preferably backed by the FDIC, and protected by federal, state, and local law enforcement.  Otherwise people wouldn't feel safe puttin gtheir money in them, and you'd have no one to make loans and pay interest.

Contracts?  Those are just pieces of paper unless you have a system of courts.

Market alternatives?  Surely you don't want anyone to steal your intellectual property.  Hrm.  If only there was some entity that could create and enforce a system of patents.

Markets?  How do you know what companies are even profitable enough to invest in?  Why can't they just make up any number they want and publish that?

Did that business take any SBIR loans?  Hire employees educated by the public schools and public universities?  Use technology that spun out of federal R&D investments?  Take advantage of national infrastructure?

But please keep thinking you're a special snowflake who did everything himself.  The rest of us matured past a child's view of the world revolving around them.
 
2014-02-05 04:06:56 PM  

redsquid: willfullyobscure: CheetahOlivetti: baconbeard: anfrind: Z-clipped: someonelse:

What would you suggest re-naming Maker Faires so that people know they are attending that and not, say, an RV show?

They used to be called "craft fairs". Without the old-timey final 'e'.

Craft fairs are typically much smaller events, and they are devoid of the electronics, explosives, and other things that make the Maker Faires so much fun.

They should be called "People Who Bought an Arduino and Managed to Wire it Together Based on Some Schematic They Found on the Internet or in Make Magazine and now Consider Themselves Equal to Nicola Tesla" Fairs. But I guess that doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

When you're at the beach, do you kick over kids' sand castles?

I stand with baconbeard.


We used to call it "a hobby" and millions of americans created, tinkered, invented and made cool shiat in their garages and workshops, and nobody needed to call it "a movement" or wrap a shiatload of phoney baloney politicophilosophical nonsense around it.


Do you know these people literally call each other "Makers"? They have Makers' Meetings to talk about how cool it is to make stuff while not actually making any stuff. Make Magazine and others blatantly encourage this crap to drive ads and sales. they are snowflakes to the absolute max and INCREDIBLY annoying about it.


It's at least as bad as the Tactical Retards Trend that mean every moron wants to owns an AR-15 and thinks he's Seal Team 1 in digital BDUs at Walmart. Reminds me of when a bunch of social rejects decided to start calling themselves "Brights" because they could blog and take online IQ tests.

I've got an idea for you- how about actually knowing what the fark you're talking about?


I was sautering IC chips when they had transistors in the double digits and coding robots in LOGO before you were out of rubber pants, my lad. I remember when a con with 300 people in attendance was coast to coast news on the BBSes. I can whistle packet headers at 300baud and write assembly with my toes. I nailed the shingles on Dave Packard's garage. Richard Stallman looks up to ME for personal grooming advice. I've seen every geek, dork, nerd, neo maxi zoom dweebie fad come and go and I can smell marketing BS from outerspace.


You have snowflake syndrome and you people invented a bunch of words to make you feel like what you're doing is different and superior and socially conscious instead of just enjoying the privilege of being able to have a hobby.
 
2014-02-05 04:11:16 PM  

Phinn: The gist of these comments is, "Government made your wealth possible, so pay up, you stingy bastard."


Also known as "part of the reason The Founders chose the system they did" - to maximize personal profit withoutbeing subjected to the whims of a potentate interested only in their own personal growth (viz the Germanic League of the times, according to Madison).
 
2014-02-05 04:13:08 PM  

willfullyobscure: redsquid: willfullyobscure: CheetahOlivetti: baconbeard: anfrind: Z-clipped: someonelse:

What would you suggest re-naming Maker Faires so that people know they are attending that and not, say, an RV show?

They used to be called "craft fairs". Without the old-timey final 'e'.

Craft fairs are typically much smaller events, and they are devoid of the electronics, explosives, and other things that make the Maker Faires so much fun.

They should be called "People Who Bought an Arduino and Managed to Wire it Together Based on Some Schematic They Found on the Internet or in Make Magazine and now Consider Themselves Equal to Nicola Tesla" Fairs. But I guess that doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

When you're at the beach, do you kick over kids' sand castles?

I stand with baconbeard.


We used to call it "a hobby" and millions of americans created, tinkered, invented and made cool shiat in their garages and workshops, and nobody needed to call it "a movement" or wrap a shiatload of phoney baloney politicophilosophical nonsense around it.


Do you know these people literally call each other "Makers"? They have Makers' Meetings to talk about how cool it is to make stuff while not actually making any stuff. Make Magazine and others blatantly encourage this crap to drive ads and sales. they are snowflakes to the absolute max and INCREDIBLY annoying about it.


It's at least as bad as the Tactical Retards Trend that mean every moron wants to owns an AR-15 and thinks he's Seal Team 1 in digital BDUs at Walmart. Reminds me of when a bunch of social rejects decided to start calling themselves "Brights" because they could blog and take online IQ tests.

I've got an idea for you- how about actually knowing what the fark you're talking about?

I was sautering IC chips when they had transistors in the double digits and coding robots in LOGO before you were out of rubber pants, my lad. I remember when a con with 300 people in attendance was coast to coast news on the BBSes. I ca ...


I'm sure your sautering skills are bulletproof. You may want to try soldering ic sockets instead if ics, though. Just a pro tip.
 
2014-02-05 04:13:30 PM  

willfullyobscure: I was sautering IC chips when they had transistors in the double digits and coding robots in LOGO before you were out of rubber pants, my lad. I remember when a con with 300 people in attendance was coast to coast news on the BBSes. I can whistle packet headers at 300baud and write assembly with my toes. I nailed the shingles on Dave Packard's garage. Richard Stallman looks up to ME for personal grooming advice. I've seen every geek, dork, nerd, neo maxi zoom dweebie fad come and go and I can smell marketing BS from outerspace.


The win in this paragraph brought tears to my eyes.

redsquid: I've been to a lot of craft fairs and they don't have robots, blacksmiths, ham radio hobbyists, taxidermists, game developers, musical instrument makers, math geeks, cosplayers or many of the other fields covered by a maker faire.


Fine.  "Modern craft fair".
 
2014-02-05 04:18:25 PM  

willfullyobscure: redsquid: willfullyobscure: CheetahOlivetti: baconbeard: anfrind: Z-clipped: someonelse:

<snip>

I was sautering IC chips when they had transistors in the double digits and coding robots in LOGO before you were out of rubber pants, my lad. I remember when a con with 300 people in attendance was coast to coast news on the BBSes. I can whistle packet headers at 300baud and write assembly with my toes. I nailed the shingles on Dave Packard's garage. Richard Stallman looks up to ME for personal grooming advice. I've seen every geek, dork, nerd, neo maxi zoom dweebie fad come and go and I can smell marketing BS from outerspace.

You have snowflake syndrome and you people invented a bunch of words to make you feel like what you're doing is different and superior and socially conscious instead of just enjoying the privilege of being able to have a hobby.


For some reason, I'd think that you'd know it's spelled "soldering" if you actually knew what you were talking about...
 
2014-02-05 04:19:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Phinn: The gist of these comments is, "Government made your wealth possible, so pay up, you stingy bastard."

Also known as "part of the reason The Founders chose the system they did" - to maximize personal profit withoutbeing subjected to the whims of a potentate interested only in their own personal growth (viz the Germanic League of the times, according to Madison).


Awesome.  Let's follow the Constitution, then.

The Federal Reserve is out.  Drug laws are out.  Most of the New Deal agencies and their successors are out.  Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security ... out, out, out.

If they are all so OBVIOUSLY popular and sensible, then I'm sure you'll have absolutely no problem enacting Constitutional amendments (pursuant to the amendment procedures that are conveniently listed in the very same document) authorizing these federal actions.
 
2014-02-05 04:21:39 PM  

nymersic: So, btw, we're primarily talking about the oldschool meaning of "hacker" here, ie., people who take one thing and creatively modify it to suit another purpose, often in a very technical way.


Just for the sake of being pedantic, it's worth noting that this more general definition of "hacker" is much newer than the MIT usage, not older.  Before the 1960s, a hacker was someone who was particularly bad at something.
 
2014-02-05 04:22:46 PM  

willfullyobscure: I was sautering IC chips when they had transistors in the double digits and coding robots in LOGO before you were out of rubber pants, my lad. I remember when a con with 300 people in attendance was coast to coast news on the BBSes. I can whistle packet headers at 300baud and write assembly with my toes. I nailed the shingles on Dave Packard's garage. Richard Stallman looks up to ME for personal grooming advice. I've seen every geek, dork, nerd, neo maxi zoom dweebie fad come and go and I can smell marketing BS from outerspace.


You do realize that being in the 'I was doing this before it was cool' camp just makes you a hipster, right?
 
2014-02-05 04:23:45 PM  

Wellon Dowd: This, ladies and gentlemen, is why God invented the internet: http://renfaireboobs.com/


Only got about 4 pages in, but, there's a whole lot of "Renaissance, No Thanks!", in those pictures.
 
2014-02-05 04:24:39 PM  
Pitabred:

For some reason, I'd think that you'd know it's spelled "soldering" if you actually knew what you were talking about...

Perhaps he was making IC chip scampi?
 
2014-02-05 04:25:57 PM  
For some reason, I'd think that you'd know it's spelled "soldering" if you actually knew what you were talking about...

spywarepreventionguy.com

redsquid: willfullyobscure: redsquid: willfullyobscure: CheetahOlivetti: baconbeard: anfrind: Z-clipped: someonelse: ...


www.bigmessowires.com
 
2014-02-05 04:27:04 PM  

Phinn: Awesome. Let's follow the Constitution, then.

The Federal Reserve is out. Drug laws are out. Most of the New Deal agencies and their successors are out. Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security ... out, out, out.


Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Seems like Congress is allowed to pass laws that they think improves the general welfare of the nation, so those are OK too.  They're subject to review by the courts, but since SCOTUS has approved of everything you've mentioned, I think we can move on.
 
2014-02-05 04:32:06 PM  

someonelse: anfrind: someonelse: Z-clipped: someonelse:

What would you suggest re-naming Maker Faires so that people know they are attending that and not, say, an RV show?

They used to be called "craft fairs". Without the old-timey final 'e'.

The old-timey 'e' is the thing that bugs me, too. You're right, we already had a perfectly good name for them with "craft fair." We still have those in my neck of the woods. But I kind of assume (maybe wrongly) that unlike craft fairs, the stuff on display at maker faires isn't for sale, and if I go to one I won't be leaving with any crocheted snowflakes or a purse with a bird on it or a knitted head-thing that's not quite a hat and not quite a headband.

I've been to the Maker Faire in San Mateo.  There's lots of stuff for sale, but they tend to be more sciencey things: Arduino kits, EL wire, specialized nozzles to make a Diet Coke and Mentos fountain obtain a higher altitude, etc.

Do people sell the stuff they've made, or is it mainly people selling stuff to make other stuff with?


Some of each, actually.  The two main areas for buying and selling things are the TechShop pavilion and the Bazaar Bizarre.  The Bazaar Bizarre tends toward crafty, ready-made things; for example, a few years ago I purchased a few tins of locally-made tea blends (and they was very good).

The TechShop pavilion is more geared toward people who want to make their own high-tech toys, and has the sorts of products I mentioned earlier (parts, kits, etc.).  TechShop also has an online store, so if you want a part or kit now, you don't have to wait for the next Maker Faire.

Side-note: there is also an area dedicated to Steampunk, but there's not nearly as much cleavage on display as at a typical RenFaire.
 
2014-02-05 04:33:35 PM  

anfrind: Some of each, actually.  The two main areas for buying and selling things are the TechShop pavilion and the Bazaar Bizarre.  The Bazaar Bizarre tends toward crafty, ready-made things; for example, a few years ago I purchased a few tins of locally-made tea blends (and they were very good).


Dammit, forgot to proofread after reformatting my post.
 
2014-02-05 04:34:17 PM  

chimp_ninja: Phinn: Awesome. Let's follow the Constitution, then.

The Federal Reserve is out. Drug laws are out. Most of the New Deal agencies and their successors are out. Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security ... out, out, out.

Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Seems like Congress is allowed to pass laws that they think improves the general welfare of the nation, so those are OK too.  They're subject to review by the courts, but since SCOTUS has approved of everything you've mentioned, I think we can move on.


The "general welfare" clause confers no powers.  If the Constitution had a catch-all delegation of authority to do WHATEVER THE HELL that very same government deemed in its own discretion to be "in the general welfare" of the country, then what would be the point of LISTING its enumerated powers?

They could have saved themselves a lot of time and debate and ink and parchment, if they'd just skipped over the specifics and said, "The federal government can do whatever it thinks is good."

And SCOTUS approval?  Yeah, they're infallible, right?

Please, think.  Use your head-jelly.  Be less of a government toady and general dumbass.
 
2014-02-05 04:39:39 PM  

chimp_ninja: Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

 
2014-02-05 04:42:49 PM  
The biggest problem with the denizens of Bullshiat Mountain is they act like their shiat don't stink. If they have success, they built it. If they failed, the government ruined it for 'em. If they get a break, they deserve it. If you get a break, it's a handout and an entitlement. It's a baffling, wilfully blind, cognitive dissonance best summed up by their head coach... [cue Craig T. Nelson derp]

-The Daily Show Rand Paul

/Chaos on Bullshiat Mountain
 
2014-02-05 04:43:52 PM  

Phinn: chimp_ninja: Phinn: Awesome. Let's follow the Constitution, then.

The Federal Reserve is out. Drug laws are out. Most of the New Deal agencies and their successors are out. Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security ... out, out, out.

Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Seems like Congress is allowed to pass laws that they think improves the general welfare of the nation, so those are OK too.  They're subject to review by the courts, but since SCOTUS has approved of everything you've mentioned, I think we can move on.

The "general welfare" clause confers no powers.  If the Constitution had a catch-all delegation of authority to do WHATEVER THE HELL that very same government deemed in its own discretion to be "in the general welfare" of the country, then what would be the point of LISTING its enumerated powers?

They could have saved themselves a lot of time and debate and ink and parchment, if they'd just skipped over the specifics and said, "The federal government can do whatever it thinks is good."

And SCOTUS approval?  Yeah, they're infallible, right?

Please, think.  Use your head-jelly.  Be less of a government toady and general dumbass.


Following the Constitution is being a government toady?
And if we get rid of regulations, businesses will do the right thing out of the goodness ot their heart.
 
2014-02-05 04:49:10 PM  
Serious question: Do they really have cosplayers at Maker Faires?

/If so, that just confirms everything I've ever thought about them.
 
2014-02-05 04:56:21 PM  

Witty_Retort: Following the Constitution is being a government toady?
And if we get rid of regulations, businesses will do the right thing out of the goodness ot their heart.


No, being a government toady is (a) saying that whatever the federal government does is authorized by the General Welfare Clause, and (b) saying that whatever SCOTUS has rubber-stamped makes it legit.

"Get rid of regulations" .... All of them?  You've done an exhaustive analysis of all regulations and deemed them to be worthy and helpful, yes?

You do realize that 99% of "government regulations" are BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the industries that own the government, right?  For their benefit, not yours.
 
2014-02-05 04:58:44 PM  

baconbeard: Serious question: Do they really have cosplayers at Maker Faires?

/If so, that just confirms everything I've ever thought about them.


The Google says "yes":

cincinnatimakerfaire.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-05 05:02:01 PM  

Z-clipped: baconbeard: Serious question: Do they really have cosplayers at Maker Faires?

/If so, that just confirms everything I've ever thought about them.

The Google says "yes":

[cincinnatimakerfaire.files.wordpress.com image 850x464]


Well. Looks like I'm vindicated. Maker's Faires are nothing more than attention-whore festivals where everyone tries to one-up each other with how "nerdy" they are.

/sad, really
 
2014-02-05 05:05:41 PM  

Phinn: Witty_Retort: Following the Constitution is being a government toady?
And if we get rid of regulations, businesses will do the right thing out of the goodness ot their heart.

No, being a government toady is (a) saying that whatever the federal government does is authorized by the General Welfare Clause, and (b) saying that whatever SCOTUS has rubber-stamped makes it legit.

"Get rid of regulations" .... All of them?  You've done an exhaustive analysis of all regulations and deemed them to be worthy and helpful, yes?

You do realize that 99% of "government regulations" are BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the industries that own the government, right?  For their benefit, not yours.


99%?
 
2014-02-05 05:05:41 PM  

Phinn: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: The gist of these comments is, "Government made your wealth possible, so pay up, you stingy bastard."

Also known as "part of the reason The Founders chose the system they did" - to maximize personal profit without being subjected to the whims of a potentate interested only in their own personal growth (viz the Germanic League of the times, according to Madison).

Awesome.  Let's follow the Constitution, then.

The Federal Reserve is out.  Drug laws are out.  Most of the New Deal agencies and their successors are out.  Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security ... out, out, out.

If they are all so OBVIOUSLY popular and sensible, then I'm sure you'll have absolutely no problem enacting Constitutional amendments (pursuant to the amendment procedures that are conveniently listed in the very same document) authorizing these federal actions.


The reason it's called a SYSTEM of government - and one with the means for amending itself, at that - is that they set it into motion for their descendants to manage. Hell, they didn't want us to try and probe their minds like they were olde timey prophets.

The system was designed to facilitate commerce. The system was designed to be "improved" (modified, for better or worse). The system was designed to be handled and examined without holding a seance at Mount Vernon.

It would also mean direct election of Senators is out, slavery's back in, and it's debatable whether the Bill of Rights applies to the individual State governments - actually, there IS no Bill of Rights, as those are all AMENDMENTS - so no freedom of speech, or religion, and I get to legislate your guns out of existence.

So take your "originalism" and shove it.
 
2014-02-05 05:07:08 PM  

Phinn: You do realize that 99% of "government regulations" are BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the industries that own the government, right?  For their benefit, not yours.


99%, huh?  *eyeroll*

Next, you can explain why the regulations that the GOP is most adamant about getting rid of all seem to fall in that "1%" that aren't bought by corporations.
 
2014-02-05 05:12:37 PM  

Phinn: a) saying that whatever the federal government does is authorized by the General Welfare Clause


Except that no one is saying that, numbnuts.  They're saying that congress has the power to levy taxes for the promotion of the general welfare, which (as the Founders intended) has a purposefully broad definition.
 
2014-02-05 05:12:40 PM  

baconbeard: Z-clipped: baconbeard: Serious question: Do they really have cosplayers at Maker Faires?

/If so, that just confirms everything I've ever thought about them.

The Google says "yes":

[cincinnatimakerfaire.files.wordpress.com image 850x464]

Well. Looks like I'm vindicated. Maker's Faires are nothing more than attention-whore festivals where everyone tries to one-up each other with how "nerdy" they are.

/sad, really


Here's a simple solution- stay home. See how easy that is?
 
2014-02-05 05:39:11 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Phinn: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: The gist of these comments is, "Government made your wealth possible, so pay up, you stingy bastard."

Also known as "part of the reason The Founders chose the system they did" - to maximize personal profit without being subjected to the whims of a potentate interested only in their own personal growth (viz the Germanic League of the times, according to Madison).

Awesome.  Let's follow the Constitution, then.

The Federal Reserve is out.  Drug laws are out.  Most of the New Deal agencies and their successors are out.  Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security ... out, out, out.

If they are all so OBVIOUSLY popular and sensible, then I'm sure you'll have absolutely no problem enacting Constitutional amendments (pursuant to the amendment procedures that are conveniently listed in the very same document) authorizing these federal actions.

The reason it's called a SYSTEM of government - and one with the means for amending itself, at that - is that they set it into motion for their descendants to manage. Hell, they didn't want us to try and probe their minds like they were olde timey prophets.

The system was designed to facilitate commerce. The system was designed to be "improved" (modified, for better or worse). The system was designed to be handled and examined without holding a seance at Mount Vernon.

It would also mean direct election of Senators is out, slavery's back in, and it's debatable whether the Bill of Rights applies to the individual State governments - actually, there IS no Bill of Rights, as those are all AMENDMENTS - so no freedom of speech, or religion, and I get to legislate your guns out of existence.

So take your "originalism" and shove it.


You're confused.

Originalism doesn't deny the legitimacy of Amendments that were duly passed and ratified.

Originalism holds that the reason we have an amendment procedure is because the meaning of the Constitution is what it meant at the time it was ratified.

It's kind of like a contract -- the text is the main place to look for an understanding of what the parties to the agreement actually agreed to.  To come along some time later, and say that a contract to pay $100 for a widget really meant that you promised to pay $1,000, because it was a "Living Contract that must change with the times" is to impose an obligation on someone that he didn't agree to.  It's unfair.

The text of the Constitution is what people agreed to.  If you believe in the legitimacy of the Constitution, then you must believe that the text means what the people who ratified it meant to say, at the time when they ratified those particular words.  Sometimes that means just reading the text itself, but if it's unclear, then the meaning can usually be derived from plenty of other contemporaneous sources, without resorting to a seance.  But the issue is, What did they who ratified it mean when then said ______?" Any other question is the wrong question to ask.

And, because there's an amendment procedure, that's how the meaning of various clauses gets changed.  If you don't like what some other set of dudes agreed that you (someone born several decades or centuries later) are bound to abide by, then go gather up enough like-minded people and amend it.

So, everything you said about direct election of senators and slavery and the Bill of Rights was entirely incorrect.

Also, as an interesting side note, the original understanding of the pre-Amended Constitution was that its powers were so narrow that an enumeration of rights was unnecessary.  The ratifiers recognized that people already had rights to free association and speech and the press and firearms and due process and all the rest, without having to list them.  They were all well-established rights in Anglo-American law by then, along with a few others, like the freedom of contract, free choice of one's occupation and a few other economic liberties that were omitted from the Bill of Rights (and have since been violated rampantly due to that oversight).

I guess they assumed that no one could be such a scum-sucking greedy asshole control freak that he'd help create a government that would make the elimination of basic economic liberty a central plank of its agenda, but then again, the framers of the Constitution hadn't met any Progressives, either.
 
2014-02-05 05:52:09 PM  

Phinn: Originalism holds that the reason we have an amendment procedure is because the meaning of the Constitution is what it meant at the time it was ratified.


Which you twist to be what you want it to mean.
 
2014-02-05 05:53:33 PM  

Phinn: The text of the Constitution is what people agreed to. If you believe in the legitimacy of the Constitution, then you must believe that the text means what the people who ratified it meant to say, at the time when they ratified those particular words.


Just to wrap this up, the Constitution was ratified by majorities of (free, male) citizens in 13 states - the better part of 3 million people in those 13 colonies/States were the ratifiers (they the people). The words probably had different meanings for each of them, and few of them (statistically, zero of them) ever got to ask the Framers what they meant.

So all we have is our best guess at what they "really" meant; whether that means digging up 18th-century dictionaries or using comparable case law or whatever - but don't pretend that any of these analytic tools give any better an answer (meaning "closer to the Platonic ideal of what the Framers meant" by a given phrase) than a plain reading of the text.

Anyway, getting back to the initial discussion, the point of this system (democratic republic) was to ensure stable self-rule, which would necessarily enhance trade and commerce (among other things). It also left lots of power in state hands - and aren't roads paid for by state-level Departments of Transportation, except when they're Interstates (and so covered by the Tenth)?

// oh, and hey, Article 1, section 8, clause 7 allows Congress "to establish...post roads"
// so think of all that asphalt as "post roads that everyone gets to use"
 
2014-02-05 05:56:43 PM  

theknuckler_33: Phinn: Originalism holds that the reason we have an amendment procedure is because the meaning of the Constitution is what it meant at the time it was ratified.

Which you twist to be what you want it to mean.


The important thing is to ask the right question -- What did the people who ratified this text mean when they ratified it?

Not "What do we tiny minority want it to mean now?"

Not "What should it have meant if they had the benefit of our superior wisdom and morality?"

Not "What do my crackpot economic theories tell me is a better text than what a bunch of dead white oppressors decided to agree to?

As long as we're debating the original meaning, then the urge to amend that meaning will naturally be channeled where it belongs -- into the Amendment process, not the Supreme Court nomination process.
 
2014-02-05 05:57:40 PM  

Phinn: The text of the Constitution is what people agreed to. If you believe in the legitimacy of the Constitution, then you must believe that the text means what the people who ratified it meant to say, at the time when they ratified those particular words. Sometimes that means just reading the text itself, but if it's unclear, then the meaning can usually be derived from plenty of other contemporaneous sources, without resorting to a seance. But the issue is, What did they who ratified it mean when then said ______?" Any other question is the wrong question to ask.


Oh, also: show me where in the Constitution it says that the words mean what they meant in 1789 (or in 1787, when it was first drafted? How about all the various sources Madison cribbed from - shall we examine those? Maybe Madison's read was wrong).

Seems to me, the Founders left the document in our hands to interpret as we please (subject to review by SCOTUS, etc).

// have a good one
// I'll be reading the Anti-Federalist Papers on the train home (finished Fed last week)
 
2014-02-05 06:00:26 PM  

Phinn: The ratifiers recognized that people already had rights to free association and speech and the press and firearms and due process and all the rest, without having to list them. They were all well-established rights in Anglo-American law by then, along with a few others, like the freedom of contract, free choice of one's occupation and a few other economic liberties that were omitted from the Bill of Rights (and have since been violated rampantly due to that oversight).


African Americans and women would like to have a word.
 
2014-02-05 06:02:08 PM  

theknuckler_33: Phinn: The ratifiers recognized that people already had rights to free association and speech and the press and firearms and due process and all the rest, without having to list them. They were all well-established rights in Anglo-American law by then, along with a few others, like the freedom of contract, free choice of one's occupation and a few other economic liberties that were omitted from the Bill of Rights (and have since been violated rampantly due to that oversight).

African Americans and women would like to have a word.


Pre-emptive apologies to your parenthetical text. But the fact that those things have been rectified is the entire point.
 
2014-02-05 06:02:23 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Just to wrap this up, the Constitution was ratified by majorities of (free, male) citizens in 13 states - the better part of 3 million people in those 13 colonies/States were the ratifiers (they the people). The words probably had different meanings for each of them, and few of them (statistically, zero of them) ever got to ask the Framers what they meant.

So all we have is our best guess at what they "really" meant; whether that means digging up 18th-century dictionaries or using comparable case law or whatever - but don't pretend that any of these analytic tools give any better an answer (meaning "closer to the Platonic ideal of what the Framers meant" by a given phrase) than a plain reading of the text.


You're right.  Obamacare actually means that I don't have to buy insurance or pay the penalty after all.  It's right there in the meaning of the text of the statute, as I read it.

Obamacare actually means I get a pony.


Dr Dreidel: // oh, and hey, Article 1, section 8, clause 7 allows Congress "to establish...post roads"
// so think of all that asphalt as "post roads that everyone gets to use"


And the establishment of post roads in no way supports the Warren/Obama theory of endless obligation to the government.  The benefits conferred by having roads (notwithstanding the 100 or so people who die on them daily due to their faulty design and rules of usage) does not justify more government control and expenditure.  It's the crappiest, most boot-strappy, circular "argument" I've heard in recent decades, and I've heard a lot of crap.
 
2014-02-05 06:02:44 PM  
Let's check in and see how Batman feels about  subby's headline.


img.fark.net


Batman likes that headline and I do too!  Good work subby!
 
2014-02-05 06:03:55 PM  

Phinn: theknuckler_33: Phinn: Originalism holds that the reason we have an amendment procedure is because the meaning of the Constitution is what it meant at the time it was ratified.

Which you twist to be what you want it to mean.

The important thing is to ask the right question -- What did the people who ratified this text mean when they ratified it?

Not "What do we tiny minority want it to mean now?"

Not "What should it have meant if they had the benefit of our superior wisdom and morality?"

Not "What do my crackpot economic theories tell me is a better text than what a bunch of dead white oppressors decided to agree to?

As long as we're debating the original meaning, then the urge to amend that meaning will naturally be channeled where it belongs -- into the Amendment process, not the Supreme Court nomination process.


Did they mean for women to  have the right to vote? Do you REALLY believe that they believed that women should have the right to vote at the time the constitution was formed?  It is pretty clear that they did not and those that came later realized that society had changed and that the framers were wrong.
 
2014-02-05 06:12:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Phinn: The text of the Constitution is what people agreed to. If you believe in the legitimacy of the Constitution, then you must believe that the text means what the people who ratified it meant to say, at the time when they ratified those particular words. Sometimes that means just reading the text itself, but if it's unclear, then the meaning can usually be derived from plenty of other contemporaneous sources, without resorting to a seance. But the issue is, What did they who ratified it mean when then said ______?" Any other question is the wrong question to ask.

Oh, also: show me where in the Constitution it says that the words mean what they meant in 1789 (or in 1787, when it was first drafted? How about all the various sources Madison cribbed from - shall we examine those? Maybe Madison's read was wrong).

Seems to me, the Founders left the document in our hands to interpret as we please (subject to review by SCOTUS, etc).

// have a good one
// I'll be reading the Anti-Federalist Papers on the train home (finished Fed last week)


A stable meaning of legal documents is implicit in the whole process of WRITING THINGS DOWN.

Of using WORDS to express LEGAL CONCEPTS.

Of going through the process of AGREEING to certain WORDS in the first place.

You know, like we do with every other aspect of law since writing was invented.  Contracts.  Wills.  Trusts.  Deeds.  Charters.  All legal acts that are expressed in written words.  In all of these situations, the operative principle is always to give legal effect to what the parties meant, as best we can determine by the text, and the next best contemporaneous sources if necessary.

To argue that the meaning of a legal text can (or should!) be changed by the opinion of the current government, when that current government was created and authorized to render opinions by that very same document, is patently absurd.
 
2014-02-05 06:15:31 PM  

theknuckler_33: Phinn: theknuckler_33: Phinn: Originalism holds that the reason we have an amendment procedure is because the meaning of the Constitution is what it meant at the time it was ratified.

Which you twist to be what you want it to mean.

The important thing is to ask the right question -- What did the people who ratified this text mean when they ratified it?

Not "What do we tiny minority want it to mean now?"

Not "What should it have meant if they had the benefit of our superior wisdom and morality?"

Not "What do my crackpot economic theories tell me is a better text than what a bunch of dead white oppressors decided to agree to?

As long as we're debating the original meaning, then the urge to amend that meaning will naturally be channeled where it belongs -- into the Amendment process, not the Supreme Court nomination process.

Did they mean for women to  have the right to vote? Do you REALLY believe that they believed that women should have the right to vote at the time the constitution was formed?  It is pretty clear that they did not and those that came later realized that society had changed and that the framers were wrong.


You're not following along.  Originalism does not oppose amendments.  It merely insists that the amendment procedure be followed, because it rejects the idea that the meaning of the Constitution mysteriously changes, automatically, according to what the current Supreme Court believes constitutes a good government policy.
 
2014-02-05 07:20:57 PM  

xanadian: baconbeard: While I think that building stuff is cool, anyone who refers to himself as a "Maker" should be taken out back and shot with the Bullets of Anti-Pretentiousness.

I'd rather be shot with sapphire bullets.  Bullets of pure love.


You've been bad and they're coming after you.
 
2014-02-06 02:27:14 AM  

Two16: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 500x373]

Raph intensifies

 
2014-02-06 02:14:25 PM  
Awesome Headline, Subby!!!
 
Displayed 49 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report