I don't create accounts because I'm not justfying myself to Mikey's band of thieves. You want to track my messages to shout me down and undermine my crdibility. I refuse to give you satisfaction.
TRANSLATION: I don't want to be held accountable for my own words!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dont think this is the only one...
I used to use the testing repository and did have some problems with Wine years ago. I prefer to do my upgrades manually (I'm old school, I guess lol).
For awhile I didn't upgrade at all because I resisted the change to systemd as long as I could, not because it doesn't work, but because I really don't like the design philosophy behind it. systemd marked the beginning of the end for "Do one thing and do it well". Debian is now headed into the Microsoft land of "do a bunch of things mostly well".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dont think this is the only one...
Free software on an antique is an all old alky / doper like you can afford.
Lol. Love the uninformed insults. Very entertaining. Aren't you the one who claims that ad hominems detract from this site?
That's why you're a pirate, too.
I am not a pirate, except for one day a year when I talk like one. If you are referring to illegal downloading, then you are also incorrect. What content (which is very little since I pay for HBO/SHOWTIME/CINEMAX on my Directv account) I do download/view these days is from PAID accounts.
But I'm even more right, and you can prove it to yourself: just TRY a modern Linux distro / GUI. They've gone backwards in last 10 years.
Not sure what you are babbling about here, my Debian install IS the latest since I upgrade to the latest Debian distros when they are released.
My laptop may be considered an "antique", but it works just fine for my purposes. Why fix something if it ain't broke?
Well damn. I guess I need to throw away my laptop which has been running Debian for over a decade and buy one of those new fancy laptops that reports everything I do to Redmond, Wa.
...the principle of a right to critical review (on equal basis with others, no editorial warning inserted by the site)
Now you are making shit up.
There is no such thing as a "principle of a right to critical review". Sure you have Free Speech rights and certainly have the right to post negative reviews wherever you wish to, but the website of the product you are reviewing has no obligation whatsoever to host your review if they choose not to.
If you disagree, show me the actual law that says a privately owned website HAS to host your comments or reviews.
Lol, Blue thinks that the CRFA forces privately owned websites to keep negative reviews up. It doesn't.
The CRFA only protects the consumer from being forced to remove reviews from other THIRD PARTY review sites, like Yelp or Angie's List, by using specific wording in the sales contract or click-through contract. Nothing in the CRFA prohibits a privately owned website from removing any reviews that it wants to, for any reason. Also a civil suit concerning a 15 U.S. Code ยง 45b violation can only be brought to the courts by either the Federal Trade Commission or a state attorney general.
Lol, Blue is being his usual brand of obtuse here.
He saw the words "form contract" in the wording of Consumer Review Protection law (link) and thinks that because Techdirt has a webpage form for submitting comments it is somehow a legally binding contract.
If he would have read a little bit further he would have seen that the term "form contract" is defined as "a contract with standardized terms".
Techdirt does not require any sort of agreement (actual, implied, click-through or otherwise) to comment on their pages, therefore no legally binding contract has been entered into by either party.
Blue, I still invite you to take your wacky, quasi-legal theory to any respectable lawyer to see how far it will get you in the real world.
Regarding the other part of your silly assertion, just because something is considered a "public space" that doesn't make them a "state actor".
For example, shopping mall common areas (lobbies, hallways, etc..) are considered "public spaces" even though they are mostly privately owned. You can be trespassed from these "public spaces" for any reason at all, including if they disagree with your speech (except in California where you been given some additional speech rights above and beyond the normal for the rest of country).
While this blog could, perhaps, be construed as a "public space" (that's really a stretch though, in my opinion) it is in no way whatsoever a "state actor" and therefore can limit your speech on this platform however they see fit.
Guess no one will claim that university is actual gov't, and so you can't explain why it's "bound to comply with the First Amendment".
Not sure what you are babbling about, but I can absolutely explain why UCLA is bound to comply with the First Amendment.
UCLA is a public university and the main legal difference between a private university and a public university is where the operating funds come from. A public university is funded (at least in part) from the government and that makes it legally a "state actor".
This is well established in existing caselaw and has been for many years. So well established in fact, that it is rarely brought up in articles about these subjects because it is such common knowledge.
So according to your criteria, the assassination of President Kennedy was not a crime.
That's a bit pedantic of you, in my opinion.
Perhaps Probitas didn't express him/herself with the exactly correct terminology, but I would guess you understood what he/she meant.
Yes, Kennedy's assassination was a crime, but the fact still remains that no one was ever proven guilty of said crime. The accusations against Oswald remain unsubstantiated accusations to this day, regardless of what the Warren Commission Reports says.
No, it's not. The Copyright Clause is an enumerated power given to CONGRESS and only to Conrgess. Our lawmakers could, at any time, eliminate any and all copyright laws without any Constitutional conflict whatsoever.
The law says we have to cut off repeat infringers!!!
[...]
The courts can determine what the term means.
Two strikes would appear to be correct as that is "repeat" infringement.
Only a court of law can determine if a copyright infringement has occurred. Anything prior to an actual court ruling is a unsubstantiated accusation.
In order for your two strikes to be proof of actual repeat infringement, they would have to two actual court rulings of infringement, not just two unsubstantiated DMCA notices of infringement.
Don't you kids have ANY creative urges to use the wonderful new opportunities? -- Of course NOT, because know full well that can't and won't get rewarded for it!
Even though I don't think you were talking to me since my AARP card says I am no longer a "kid", I'll answer anyways.
Yes, I have creative urges and I act on them. When I have the need to create something, I write code and (GASP!) license it under the GPL so the whole world can use and copy it for FREE!
For me, the need to create has absolutely NOTHING to do with "rewards" and I think that you are demeaning actual creators by implying that the only reason anyone creates is for profit.
Under common law principles I add, since so many here, apparent foreigners like "Gary", don't grasp that's the foundation of the US Constitution.
I'm not sure I would say that "common law" is the "foundation", but it's true that some of the ideas espoused in the the Magna Carta are incorporated in our Constitution. Ideas like fair trials, habeas corpus, and an independent judiciary. One of the most influential ideas is "due process" which is addressed in the 5th and 14th Amendments.
I do find your comment to be hypocritical, Blue, since I've witnessed you strenuously cheering on the dismantling of Megaupload and the prosecution of Kim Dotcom with very little of what we now have come to consider as due process.
Your paradox absorbing crumple zones are simply amazing sometimes, Blue.
PS: You are still a big fat liar, in my book, since you can't even man up to your own challenge and stop "darkening this site" like you said you would.
Your first sentence contains the terms of the agreement:
Tell ya what, Msnick. If you'll refute that -- not just quote and contradict but show / argue basis in law -- then I'll never darken your site.
Mike did EXACTLY what your terms required - he refuted your "Summary to here" completely.
Nothing in your second sentence (which you highlighted for some reason) changed the terms of your challenge, it is just some incorrect notion you asserted.
If you ask my opinion, every comment you make darkens this site.
So, in the immortal words of Gene Wilder - "You lose. You get nothing. Good day, sir!"
On the post: Activists Make One Last Push To Restore Net Neutrality Via Congressional Review Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TRANSLATION: I don't want to be held accountable for my own words!
Wuss.
On the post: Court Tells Former NRA President The First Amendment Protects Far More Than Polite Speech
Re:
That is Free Speech, you dolt.
You're free to say what you want (as long as it's actually protected speech) and I'm free to ignore you.
On the post: Israeli Exploit Developer Caught Negotiating Spyware Sales With Saudi Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dont think this is the only one...
I used to use the testing repository and did have some problems with Wine years ago. I prefer to do my upgrades manually (I'm old school, I guess lol).
For awhile I didn't upgrade at all because I resisted the change to systemd as long as I could, not because it doesn't work, but because I really don't like the design philosophy behind it. systemd marked the beginning of the end for "Do one thing and do it well". Debian is now headed into the Microsoft land of "do a bunch of things mostly well".
On the post: Israeli Exploit Developer Caught Negotiating Spyware Sales With Saudi Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dont think this is the only one...
Lol. Love the uninformed insults. Very entertaining. Aren't you the one who claims that ad hominems detract from this site?
I am not a pirate, except for one day a year when I talk like one. If you are referring to illegal downloading, then you are also incorrect. What content (which is very little since I pay for HBO/SHOWTIME/CINEMAX on my Directv account) I do download/view these days is from PAID accounts.
Not sure what you are babbling about here, my Debian install IS the latest since I upgrade to the latest Debian distros when they are released.
My laptop may be considered an "antique", but it works just fine for my purposes. Why fix something if it ain't broke?
On the post: Israeli Exploit Developer Caught Negotiating Spyware Sales With Saudi Government
Re: Re: Dont think this is the only one...
Well damn. I guess I need to throw away my laptop which has been running Debian for over a decade and buy one of those new fancy laptops that reports everything I do to Redmond, Wa.
On the post: Dystopia Now: Insurance Company Secretly Spying On Sleep Apnea Patients
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you are making shit up.
There is no such thing as a "principle of a right to critical review". Sure you have Free Speech rights and certainly have the right to post negative reviews wherever you wish to, but the website of the product you are reviewing has no obligation whatsoever to host your review if they choose not to.
If you disagree, show me the actual law that says a privately owned website HAS to host your comments or reviews.
On the post: Dystopia Now: Insurance Company Secretly Spying On Sleep Apnea Patients
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol, Blue thinks that the CRFA forces privately owned websites to keep negative reviews up. It doesn't.
The CRFA only protects the consumer from being forced to remove reviews from other THIRD PARTY review sites, like Yelp or Angie's List, by using specific wording in the sales contract or click-through contract. Nothing in the CRFA prohibits a privately owned website from removing any reviews that it wants to, for any reason. Also a civil suit concerning a 15 U.S. Code ยง 45b violation can only be brought to the courts by either the Federal Trade Commission or a state attorney general.
On the post: Dystopia Now: Insurance Company Secretly Spying On Sleep Apnea Patients
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol, Blue is being his usual brand of obtuse here.
He saw the words "form contract" in the wording of Consumer Review Protection law (link) and thinks that because Techdirt has a webpage form for submitting comments it is somehow a legally binding contract.
If he would have read a little bit further he would have seen that the term "form contract" is defined as "a contract with standardized terms".
Techdirt does not require any sort of agreement (actual, implied, click-through or otherwise) to comment on their pages, therefore no legally binding contract has been entered into by either party.
Blue, I still invite you to take your wacky, quasi-legal theory to any respectable lawyer to see how far it will get you in the real world.
On the post: UCLA Flails Amid Pro-Palestine Group's Planned Conference, While L.A.'s City Council Goes Full Stupid
Re: Re: Re:
Ok. I wasn't really sure if it was that way everywhere.
I know in my state we do vote for the Board of Regents for a couple of universities, but not for others that I'm pretty sure are public universities.
On the post: Alabama Voters Say At Least One Sheriff Won't Be Enriching Himself With Federal Inmate Food Funds
Re: Re: Re:
Or complain about Popehat because none of their articles are about religious headgear.
On the post: UCLA Flails Amid Pro-Palestine Group's Planned Conference, While L.A.'s City Council Goes Full Stupid
Re: Section 230 & 1A from another direction:
Well then, why don't you give it a go, Blue?
Go see a lawyer and ask them to sue Techdirt to force them to unhide all your comments you've made over the years and see how far it gets you.
On the post: UCLA Flails Amid Pro-Palestine Group's Planned Conference, While L.A.'s City Council Goes Full Stupid
Re: Section 230 & 1A from another direction:
Regarding the other part of your silly assertion, just because something is considered a "public space" that doesn't make them a "state actor".
For example, shopping mall common areas (lobbies, hallways, etc..) are considered "public spaces" even though they are mostly privately owned. You can be trespassed from these "public spaces" for any reason at all, including if they disagree with your speech (except in California where you been given some additional speech rights above and beyond the normal for the rest of country).
While this blog could, perhaps, be construed as a "public space" (that's really a stretch though, in my opinion) it is in no way whatsoever a "state actor" and therefore can limit your speech on this platform however they see fit.
On the post: UCLA Flails Amid Pro-Palestine Group's Planned Conference, While L.A.'s City Council Goes Full Stupid
Re:
Not sure what you are babbling about, but I can absolutely explain why UCLA is bound to comply with the First Amendment.
UCLA is a public university and the main legal difference between a private university and a public university is where the operating funds come from. A public university is funded (at least in part) from the government and that makes it legally a "state actor".
This is well established in existing caselaw and has been for many years. So well established in fact, that it is rarely brought up in articles about these subjects because it is such common knowledge.
On the post: AT&T Ignores Numerous Pitfalls, Begins Kicking Pirates Off Of The Internet
Re: Re: Alleged is not Guilt
That's a bit pedantic of you, in my opinion.
Perhaps Probitas didn't express him/herself with the exactly correct terminology, but I would guess you understood what he/she meant.
Yes, Kennedy's assassination was a crime, but the fact still remains that no one was ever proven guilty of said crime. The accusations against Oswald remain unsubstantiated accusations to this day, regardless of what the Warren Commission Reports says.
On the post: AT&T Ignores Numerous Pitfalls, Begins Kicking Pirates Off Of The Internet
Re: Re:
No, it's not. The Copyright Clause is an enumerated power given to CONGRESS and only to Conrgess. Our lawmakers could, at any time, eliminate any and all copyright laws without any Constitutional conflict whatsoever.
Only a court of law can determine if a copyright infringement has occurred. Anything prior to an actual court ruling is a unsubstantiated accusation.
In order for your two strikes to be proof of actual repeat infringement, they would have to two actual court rulings of infringement, not just two unsubstantiated DMCA notices of infringement.
On the post: New York Lawmakers Want Social Media History To Be Included In Gun Background Checks
Re: Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
Like me. I've never had a Facebook or Twitter account and I don't often do Google searches while logged into Google.
On the post: Streaming Exclusives Will Drive Users Back To Piracy And The Industry Is Largely Oblivious
Re:
Even though I don't think you were talking to me since my AARP card says I am no longer a "kid", I'll answer anyways.
Yes, I have creative urges and I act on them. When I have the need to create something, I write code and (GASP!) license it under the GPL so the whole world can use and copy it for FREE!
For me, the need to create has absolutely NOTHING to do with "rewards" and I think that you are demeaning actual creators by implying that the only reason anyone creates is for profit.
Just my 2 cents.
On the post: Facebook, Whose Support Made FOSTA Law, Now Sued For Facilitating Sex Trafficking Under FOSTA
Re:
I'm not sure I would say that "common law" is the "foundation", but it's true that some of the ideas espoused in the the Magna Carta are incorporated in our Constitution. Ideas like fair trials, habeas corpus, and an independent judiciary. One of the most influential ideas is "due process" which is addressed in the 5th and 14th Amendments.
I do find your comment to be hypocritical, Blue, since I've witnessed you strenuously cheering on the dismantling of Megaupload and the prosecution of Kim Dotcom with very little of what we now have come to consider as due process.
Your paradox absorbing crumple zones are simply amazing sometimes, Blue.
PS: You are still a big fat liar, in my book, since you can't even man up to your own challenge and stop "darkening this site" like you said you would.
On the post: Fake Comments Are Plaguing Government Agencies And Nobody Much Seems To Care
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fake comments
No Blue, you actually tricked yourself.
Your first sentence contains the terms of the agreement:
Mike did EXACTLY what your terms required - he refuted your "Summary to here" completely.
Nothing in your second sentence (which you highlighted for some reason) changed the terms of your challenge, it is just some incorrect notion you asserted.
If you ask my opinion, every comment you make darkens this site.
So, in the immortal words of Gene Wilder - "You lose. You get nothing. Good day, sir!"
On the post: Fake Comments Are Plaguing Government Agencies And Nobody Much Seems To Care
Re: Re: Re: fake comments
Why are you still here Blue?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180922/11374040692/this-week-techdirt-history-september-16 th-22nd.shtml#c164
Oh wait, now I remember, it's because you are a liar.
Next >>