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 69
    More: Obvious, White House, Maker Faires, First Lady Michelle Obama, White House announced, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, East Room, State of the Union, free world  
•       •       •

3036 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Feb 2014 at 10:55 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-05 11:04:37 AM
6 votes:
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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-05 11:26:48 AM
5 votes:

chimp_ninja: One might say that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. If one wanted to say something horribly inflammatory, of course!


Well... the entire meme is another example how the GOP is intellectually weak and can only score points from an appeal to ignorance.
2014-02-05 11:39:17 AM
4 votes:
eclectablog.com
2014-02-05 11:25:04 AM
4 votes:

thurstonxhowell: If Obama praises the companies that make 3d printing machines, will Republicans shiat all over for implying that the people who use 3d printing machines to make things didn't make them?


It's almost like the Makers at the faire benefit from an infrastructure wherein other people make Making Machines, whip up barrels of Making Plastic, ship them on our roads, get the devices in the hands of Makers, who run them off our shared electrical grid, while downloading plans from the ARPANET's child into software packages that other people made, often so they can sell their homemade items and ship them out via our postal system.  And that all of this largely works because of the downstream consequences of public education, college loans, research grants, safety regulations, and an intellectual property system enforced by the courts.

One might say that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  If one wanted to say something horribly inflammatory, of course!
2014-02-05 02:54:39 PM
3 votes:

dinch: Phinn: The gist of the "You didn't build that" comment was "You owe us because we built your roads."

That's what you got out of the comment? No wonder you're so bitter.


The original comment was made by Fauxcahontas:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own - nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory - and hire someone to protect against this - because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless - keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.


Obama paraphrased the very same idea, and was speaking specifically in the context of taxation (i.e., what people OWE the government, for all the wonderful things it does):

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back. They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


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

It doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny.  The things that people paid for, via taxation, are ALREADY PAID FOR.  Only in a government mindset would you have this quasi-religious theme of, "There's no end to what we've done for you, so how dare you complain about paying more?!?"

No one gets rich on his own.  Yes, that's true.  People get rich either by sucking up to the State and getting fat on government contracts, or they earn it by efficiently providing valuable goods and services to willing customers.  That's it.  Those are the only two options on the menu.

Clearly, Option 1 is for assholes, and as much as the serfs complain about the graft and cronyism, it's not changing any time soon.

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.

In the world of commerce, you don't get to come back later and say, "You know, you still owe me!  So, I'm altering the deal.  Pray I don't alter it any further."
2014-02-05 12:16:16 PM
3 votes:

DarkJohnson: Should it be a little concerning that the President, who owns killer drones, is in awe of a canon that fires marshmallows?


It's certainly a real concern for those who are wondering about such stupid things.
Let's see what the average Fox News viewer thinks:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2014-02-05 11:30:18 AM
3 votes:

DarkJohnson: Should it be a little concerning that the President, who owns killer drones, is in awe of a canon that fires marshmallows?

[cdn.theguardian.tv image 480x360]
"Son this is awesome, can we attach it to that octocopter?"


He's sharing the excitement with the little kid.

img855.imageshack.us

I'm sorry but anyone that would be this cool with a bunch of kids is at least "all-right" in my book.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-02-05 11:23:07 AM
3 votes:
An entire thread based on a lie about a statement that simply said that we all built the roads together.

As usual, a banner day for Fark.
2014-02-05 09:59:13 AM
3 votes:

QU!RK1019: I love the sheer metric volume of jimmies Obama rustled with that quote.


It's like someone made a caricature of political opposition.

"What can the President say that will mortally offend his opponent?"
"When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
"Ooh, that will drive them crazy. Can the First Lady say something that will whip them up even more?"
"Kids should eat their vegetables."

"Perfect."
2014-02-05 05:52:09 PM
2 votes:

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 03:09:59 PM
2 votes:

Phinn: No one gets rich on his own.  Yes, that's true.  People get rich either by sucking up to the State and getting fat on government contracts, or they earn it by efficiently providing valuable goods and services to willing customers.  That's it.  Those are the only two options on the menu.


Has inherited wealth been outlawed on your planet?
2014-02-05 03:03:51 PM
2 votes:

Phinn: People get rich either by sucking up to the State and getting fat on government contracts, or they earn it by efficiently providing valuable goods and services to willing customers.  That's it.  Those are the only two options on the menu.


This is what republicans actually believe.
2014-02-05 02:38:25 PM
2 votes:

Phinn: JohnnyC: Phinn: d23: An entire thread based on a lie about a statement that simply said that we all built the roads together.

As usual, a banner day for Fark.

The thing is, taxpayers also already paid for the roads.  And we keep paying to maintain them.

The comment by Fartbongo (which was a paraphrase of an the earlier one by Fauxcahontas) was about how everyone still owes the government more and more gratitude (i.e., money), all because had previously paid the government to build roads.

There was nothing in the road-building legislation that said that once the government built roads, that meant the government is owed a bottomless debt, forever.  That's just stupid.

Please tell me you're just really bad at sarcasm/satire.

Show me where it said that the enactment of the road-building program meant that government is forever entitled to a cut of whatever profitable use is made with those roads.

The gist of the "You didn't build that" comment was "You owe us because we built your roads."

The sensible response is, "We already paid for the roads. We don't owe more just because people use the paid-for roads to earn a living."

If Starbucks came to you and said that the caffeinated beverage it sold to you yesterday helped you earn a promotion, so that $2.15 you paid is now $4.15, you'd probably say that wasn't part of the original bargain, so fark off.


And who is paying to maintain the roads do you think they are using tomorrow?

Who is regulating the markets to minimize the risk of being caught by fraudulent activities for that money you earned?

Who is running the legal system that will enforce ongoing and future contracts?

You aren't taxed on your historical income, you are taxed on your current income.

The statement was simply that you are some bulwark of rugged individualism, you are a part of society and you benefit from society.

Until you are dead and buried you will continue to benefit from society.
2014-02-05 02:12:41 PM
2 votes:

Phinn: The gist of the "You didn't build that" comment was "You owe us because we built your roads."


That's what you got out of the comment? No wonder you're so bitter.
2014-02-05 02:09:45 PM
2 votes:

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.
2014-02-05 01:53:38 PM
2 votes:

JohnnyC: Phinn: d23: An entire thread based on a lie about a statement that simply said that we all built the roads together.

As usual, a banner day for Fark.

The thing is, taxpayers also already paid for the roads.  And we keep paying to maintain them.

The comment by Fartbongo (which was a paraphrase of an the earlier one by Fauxcahontas) was about how everyone still owes the government more and more gratitude (i.e., money), all because had previously paid the government to build roads.

There was nothing in the road-building legislation that said that once the government built roads, that meant the government is owed a bottomless debt, forever.  That's just stupid.

Please tell me you're just really bad at sarcasm/satire.


Show me where it said that the enactment of the road-building program meant that government is forever entitled to a cut of whatever profitable use is made with those roads.

The gist of the "You didn't build that" comment was "You owe us because we built your roads."

The sensible response is, "We already paid for the roads. We don't owe more just because people use the paid-for roads to earn a living."

If Starbucks came to you and said that the caffeinated beverage it sold to you yesterday helped you earn a promotion, so that $2.15 you paid is now $4.15, you'd probably say that wasn't part of the original bargain, so fark off.
2014-02-05 01:01:41 PM
2 votes:

DarkJohnson: Should it be a little concerning that the President, who owns killer drones, is in awe of a canon that fires marshmallows?

[cdn.theguardian.tv image 480x360]
"Son this is awesome, can we attach it to that octocopter?"


Well, he has a better grasp of technology than his predecessor:

www.dubyaspeak.com
2014-02-05 12:54:05 PM
2 votes:

thurstonxhowell: If Obama praises the companies that make 3d printing machines, will Republicans shiat all over for implying that the people who use 3d printing machines to make things didn't make them?


Republicans shiat themselves over arugula and mustard, in fact, they are constantly shiatting themselves.

Must suck, to be so scared, all the time.
2014-02-05 12:09:10 PM
2 votes:

Onkel Buck: A headline critical of Barry distorting something the president said?

[i26.photobucket.com image 320x136]


Yes
2014-02-05 11:04:34 AM
2 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com
/invited.
2014-02-05 10:53:36 AM
2 votes:

CheetahOlivetti: if you haven't been to a Maker Faire,


I exhibited at the first Maker Faire and a few years after that before 'retiring' from it.  I think they're great and I think it's a great stunt for the White House to host one (much better than rolling easter eggs)

But I do find the 'you didn't make it' meme funny.
2014-02-05 09:18:16 AM
2 votes:
I love the sheer metric volume of jimmies Obama rustled with that quote.
2014-02-06 02:27:14 AM
1 votes:

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

Raph intensifies

2014-02-05 06:15:31 PM
1 votes:

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 06:12:47 PM
1 votes:

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 06:03:55 PM
1 votes:

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 06:02:44 PM
1 votes:
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 06:02:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:43 PM
1 votes:

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 05:39:11 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:41 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:41 PM
1 votes:

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 05:02:01 PM
1 votes:

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 04:58:44 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:21 PM
1 votes:

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 04:49:10 PM
1 votes:
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 04:43:52 PM
1 votes:

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 04:34:17 PM
1 votes:

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 04:27:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:19:14 PM
1 votes:

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 03:56:48 PM
1 votes:

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 03:51:47 PM
1 votes:

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 03:27:32 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: dinch: Phinn: The gist of the "You didn't build that" comment was "You owe us because we built your roads."

That's what you got out of the comment? No wonder you're so bitter.

The original comment was made by Fauxcahontas:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own - nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory - and hire someone to protect against this - because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless - keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.


Obama paraphrased the very same idea, and was speaking specifically in the context of taxation (i.e., what people OWE the government, for all the wonderful things it does):

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back. They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.


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

It doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny.  The things that people paid for, via taxation, are ALREADY PAID FOR.  Only in a government mindset would you have this quasi-religious theme of, "There's no end to what we've done for you, so how dare you complain about paying more?!?"

No one gets rich on his own.  Yes, that's true.  People get rich either by sucking up to the State and getting fat on government contracts, or they earn it by efficiently providing valuable goods and services to willing customers.  That's it.  Those are the only two options on the menu.

Clearly, Option 1 is for assholes, and as much as the serfs complain about the graft and cronyism, it's not changing any time soon.

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.

In the world of commerce, you don't get to come back later and say, "You know, you still owe me!  So, I'm altering the deal.  Pray I don't alter it any further."


1) You think that people suddenly quit usinf and services provided by the government once they got rich?

2) You think that 40 year old rich guy the education of his 45 year old employee?

Which leads to three points:

1) You pay taxes on current income, not past. What you paid in the past was related to what you received in the past. What you are paying now relates to what you receive now. What you pay in the future relates to what you receive in the future.

2) A necessary part of a functioning society is that every generation pays costs to develop future generations. Your parents' generation paid for the education of your generation, you didn't. Now you pay for the education of the next generation. People 50 years ago paid to build that bridge you used, now you pay for the replacement that will be used by future generations.
Even within your business, when you were developing it you would have been paying relatively low taxes due to numerous expenses. Now that you are in a better position you are paying more.

3) You are using government services until you are dead and buried (in fact may be using the long after as well).
2014-02-05 03:17:55 PM
1 votes:

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...
2014-02-05 03:10:14 PM
1 votes:
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why God invented the internet: http://renfaireboobs.com/
2014-02-05 02:54:19 PM
1 votes:

Z-clipped: willfullyobscure: 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.

Pshh... my grandparents had hobbies.  How can I assert my youthful rugged individualism if I don't come up with a new term that makes me sound serious and important?  I mean, my dad just soldered simple circuits and wired gadgets to them...  I, on the other hand, consider the social implications of soldering simple circuits and wiring gadgets to them.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
2014-02-05 02:46:39 PM
1 votes:

Deucednuisance: baconbeard: Did you just publicly brag about getting into a RenFaire for free, as if it was some sort of perk?

Beats paying for it.  I don't mind walking about a sea of heaving bosoms on a pretty day.  What are you, some kind of fairy?

And I like to drink cider, too.


I like walking around Ren Faire on stilts:

images.tribe.net
2014-02-05 02:30:17 PM
1 votes:

someonelse:

You think "artisan" is less pretentious than "maker"? I ... don't know how to process that.

It depends on how it's used.  If I say I make artisanal cheese or artisanal whiskey, it specifically means I make it by hand, using pre-industrial techniques.  If I have a business card that reads, "Z-Clipped- occupation: Artisan" then yes, that would be extremely pretentious.  I'll happily take "craftsman" as a catch-all term for anybody who "makes things" in small number, on their own. That includes pottery, trebuchets, printed circuits, and even small software projects directly related to creating stuff.

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.


Yeah, this is what I was thinking.

Phinn: Show me where it said that the enactment of the road-building program meant that government is forever entitled to a cut of whatever profitable use is made with those roads.


Have you studied any of the history between now and say, ancient Rome?  I'm guessing not, or you wouldn't have typed something quite this incredibly stupid.
2014-02-05 01:29:31 PM
1 votes:

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?


When I'm at the beach, I kick over kids. I kick over kids.
2014-02-05 01:21:07 PM
1 votes:

d23: An entire thread based on a lie about a statement that simply said that we all built the roads together.

As usual, a banner day for Fark.


The thing is, taxpayers also already paid for the roads.  And we keep paying to maintain them.

The comment by Fartbongo (which was a paraphrase of an the earlier one by Fauxcahontas) was about how everyone still owes the government more and more gratitude (i.e., money), all because had previously paid the government to build roads.

There was nothing in the road-building legislation that said that once the government built roads, that meant the government is owed a bottomless debt, forever.  That's just stupid.
2014-02-05 01:11:43 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-05 01:04:28 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-05 12:57:01 PM
1 votes:

Z-clipped: CheetahOlivetti: someonelse: baconbeard: IrateShadow: 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.

You think it's pretentious?  I think it sounds a little... simple.  Like if Forrest Gump was a carpenter and you asked him what he did for a living.

I think it's pretentious to bestow any sort of title upon one's self. It renders the title absolutely meaningless while at the same time it smacks of inclusivity.

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

It's sort of tough to come up with a term that encompasses custom PCB makers (see?), people who build huge fire-breathing steampunk dragons, and people who handspin their own yarn.

Artisan or craftsman(person) isn't good enough?

"Maker" sounds like a pretentious title thought up by a geek with a 3D printer who is convinced that there's no limit to the things he can "make" with it.


You think "artisan" is less pretentious than "maker"? I ... don't know how to process that.
2014-02-05 12:37:50 PM
1 votes:
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'.
2014-02-05 12:37:49 PM
1 votes:

d23: chimp_ninja: One might say that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. If one wanted to say something horribly inflammatory, of course!

Well... the entire meme is another example how the GOP is intellectually weak and can only score points from an appeal to ignorance.


Awww!  The butt hurt must flow!!
2014-02-05 12:30:05 PM
1 votes:

CheetahOlivetti: someonelse: baconbeard: IrateShadow: 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.

You think it's pretentious?  I think it sounds a little... simple.  Like if Forrest Gump was a carpenter and you asked him what he did for a living.

I think it's pretentious to bestow any sort of title upon one's self. It renders the title absolutely meaningless while at the same time it smacks of inclusivity.

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

It's sort of tough to come up with a term that encompasses custom PCB makers (see?), people who build huge fire-breathing steampunk dragons, and people who handspin their own yarn.


Artisan or craftsman(person) isn't good enough?

"Maker" sounds like a pretentious title thought up by a geek with a 3D printer who is convinced that there's no limit to the things he can "make" with it.
2014-02-05 12:14:19 PM
1 votes:

DarkJohnson: I came here just to say I made this comment.   Suck it O


I can't tell anymore... are you all just playing along with a meme, or are there still people who sincerely thought that speech was saying something controversial?
2014-02-05 12:08:18 PM
1 votes:

d23: An entire thread based on a lie about a statement that simply said that we all built the roads together.

As usual, a banner day for Fark.


Cry more.
2014-02-05 11:54:34 AM
1 votes:

d23: chimp_ninja: One might say that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. If one wanted to say something horribly inflammatory, of course!

Well... the entire meme is another example how the GOP is intellectually weak and can only score points from an appeal to ignorance.


I dunno, I'm a filthy lib, but the meme cracks me up for some reason.
2014-02-05 11:41:24 AM
1 votes:
babylon 5 reference
2014-02-05 11:30:14 AM
1 votes:
A headline critical of Barry?

i26.photobucket.com
2014-02-05 11:16:41 AM
1 votes:
Maker's fair?
beerspill.fark.com
2014-02-05 11:16:08 AM
1 votes:

derpy: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 600x445]
/invited.


Bless the Maker and all His Water. Bless the coming and going of Him, May His passing cleanse the world. May He keep the world for his people.
2014-02-05 11:00:55 AM
1 votes:
That's just begging to be turned into "Takers Faire."
2014-02-05 10:31:44 AM
1 votes:
Setting aside the political sniping for a moment: if you haven't been to a Maker Faire, you really should go to one of the big ones: San Mateo in May or NYC (Queens) in September.

It'll probably be a bit more difficult to get into the White House Maker Faire, but I'm hoping they keep it as open as possible.
2014-02-05 10:19:16 AM
1 votes:

DarkJohnson: I came here just to say I made this comment.   Suck it O


Exhibit A
2014-02-05 10:09:59 AM
1 votes:
Like most things in life, this was inspired by a kid with a marshmallow cannon.
 
Displayed 69 of 69 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report