"I explicitly said I wasn't making a claim either way."
Why don't you man up and make one?
"My point this whole time has been that Mike has no trouble stating that this violates the Fourth Amendment even though he has no ability to actually do the analysis."
And this is why your obvious personal attacks fail so completely. At the very least Mike is doing the same analysis as neatly everyone else reading these stories; a plain-English, common-sense reading if the Forth Amendment, based on what was obviously intended for it to achieve. That analysis is not hard and doesn't require expert legal knowledge. The only people who think you do are are lawyers and politicians trying to twist and distort basic Constitutional principles to get the result wanted, whether that's in the public's best interest or (most likely) not.
"...I merely make note of the fact that the author's expertise in matters such as this is sorely lacking..."
And I'll merely make note of the fact that you've provided absolutely no evidence that your expertise in matters such as this even exists. All you done is make yourself sound like as ass.
And we should take the word of an obnoxious AC over Mike because... why, again?
"It's evil like kicking cats to assert their rights?"
No, the whole point is that they should not have any such rights to assert. But you know that, you're just trying to twist things around to take a cheap shot. Sorry, you fail again.
"You censor free speech, stifle debate in the comments..."
And yet here you are...
"...makes you'r web site kind of worthless, less that worthless."
And yet here you are...
"If you will not allow debate or comment, no one will bother reading all your cultists constantly agreeing with you !!"
And yet here you are...
You�re doing a fine job of completely undermining your own claims.
"Because if you make a statement, it should be that ALL people are able to comment on it equally."
Really? Where does it say that? Can you list all the other websites that have that have completely unrestricted commenting, no spam filter, no moderation of any kind?
To all those people who want to know why Kim Dotcom is fighting extradition to the US instead of just turning up in court to defend himself, THIS IS WHY.
"So nytimes.com claim many users had difficulty accessing content. But I guess we should believe you instead because you just know these things, right?"
So the NYT says "many users had difficulty accessing content" and Mike says "this also shows just how laughably ineffective DNS blocking/redirecting would have been in SOPA... because it's so easy to get around and many, many people did." These two statement are NOT in conflict with each other. Both can be (and most probably are) completely correct.
Sorry, but your lame 'gotcha' fell flat on it's face.
Re: McDonalds coffee... division by four... and stupid deputies
"Secondly for the person who came up with -170 degrees after dividing by four, time to go back to the 4th grade. That IS where you didn't learn division, right? No positive number divided by four gives you any negative number. Since using the little calculator icon seems difficult this morning for you allow me to help out. 180F/4=45F."
Pro tip: If you're going to call someone out on what you think is a mistake, and be a bit of a dick about it, it pays to make sure you're actually correct. Coz if you turn out to be completely wrong (and you are), you look spectacularly stoopid.
"...our customers must contractually agree that they will not attempt to trace a message."
I�m not sure if you�re so ignorant you actually believe that agreement would be honored, or if you know it won�t be but think you we�re stupid enough to believe you. Since you claim to be in the game, I lean towards the latter.
"So please spare me this drivel that there wasn't a safe way for him to first try the chain of command There was."
Even if it was as safe as you claim, the article clearly explains why it wouldn�t be effective. What�s the point of whistleblowing directly to people who don�t believe they�re doing anything wrong?
"The fact is that Mr. Snowden violated his oath and his employer's code of ethics."
And nobody has claimed otherwise, it�s just completely irrelevant. Most people who take these oaths don�t expect to find themselves concealing behavior that they consider to be immoral, unconstitutional and completely against the public�s interest.
"We work with courageous people everyday who have concerns about their employees conduct - but they don't go running to the Russians or the Chinese with their concerns."
He didn�t don't go running to the Russians or the Chinese with his concerns, he went public with his concerns. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the Russians or Chinese have benefited from this in any way. Feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary.
On the post: Syrian Electronic Army 'Hack' Of The NYTimes Was The Exact Remedy MPAA Demanded With SOPA
I think he understands just fine, and the technological ignorance and willful misrepresentation are just part of his job description.
On the post: Feds Had Court Reverse Ban On Warrantless Searches On Americans Because 'We Wanted To Be Able To Do It'
Re:
Why don't you man up and make one?
"My point this whole time has been that Mike has no trouble stating that this violates the Fourth Amendment even though he has no ability to actually do the analysis."
And this is why your obvious personal attacks fail so completely. At the very least Mike is doing the same analysis as neatly everyone else reading these stories; a plain-English, common-sense reading if the Forth Amendment, based on what was obviously intended for it to achieve. That analysis is not hard and doesn't require expert legal knowledge. The only people who think you do are are lawyers and politicians trying to twist and distort basic Constitutional principles to get the result wanted, whether that's in the public's best interest or (most likely) not.
On the post: Feds Had Court Reverse Ban On Warrantless Searches On Americans Because 'We Wanted To Be Able To Do It'
Re: Re: Mike's bias - its obvious
Law student with narcissistic and obsessive tendencies...
On the post: Court Tells Journalist Barrett Brown He And His Lawyers Can't Talk To The Press Any More
Re: Re: Re:
And I'll merely make note of the fact that you've provided absolutely no evidence that your expertise in matters such as this even exists. All you done is make yourself sound like as ass.
If you have an argument to make, make it.
On the post: Dumb Speeding Criminal Decides To Post Manhattan Speed Run Video Online
Re:
On the post: Warner Music Reprising The Role Of The Evil Slayer Of The Public Domain, Fights Back Against Happy Birthday Lawsuit
Re:
And we should take the word of an obnoxious AC over Mike because... why, again?
"It's evil like kicking cats to assert their rights?"
No, the whole point is that they should not have any such rights to assert. But you know that, you're just trying to twist things around to take a cheap shot. Sorry, you fail again.
On the post: Megachurch's Anti-Vaccine Stance Results In God's Measles-y Wrath
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Kim Dotcom Forming New Political Party In New Zealand
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Alll weekend !!
And yet here you are...
"...makes you'r web site kind of worthless, less that worthless."
And yet here you are...
"If you will not allow debate or comment, no one will bother reading all your cultists constantly agreeing with you !!"
And yet here you are...
You�re doing a fine job of completely undermining your own claims.
"Because if you make a statement, it should be that ALL people are able to comment on it equally."
Really? Where does it say that? Can you list all the other websites that have that have completely unrestricted commenting, no spam filter, no moderation of any kind?
On the post: Police Admit That NZ Spy Agency Illegally Spied On Kim Dotcom, But Aren't Going To Do Anything About It
Re: Criminality by NZ Gestapo doesn't exonerate Dotcom!
I bet the Stasi and KGB thought they were pretty 'civilized' too...
On the post: Evangelist Adorns Biblical Child Rearing Book With 'Modern Family' Portrait He Found Via Google
Re: Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
On the post: Evangelist Adorns Biblical Child Rearing Book With 'Modern Family' Portrait He Found Via Google
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
On the post: Best Response To A Copyright Threat Ever? Lawyers Explain Why ABA Is Full Of S**t In Claiming Copyright On Routing Numbers
Re: My Professors Would Fail The People Who Wrote This Letter.
Except this wasn't a letter written to a professor, and it was obviously included for comedic effect.
On the post: Court Says Feds Don't Have To Reveal Secret Evidence It Gathered Against 'Terror' Suspect Using FISA
On the post: Evangelist Adorns Biblical Child Rearing Book With 'Modern Family' Portrait He Found Via Google
Re: Re: I wonder if I will read articles here again
And the child abuse (paddling). Don't forget that.
On the post: Syrian Electronic Army 'Hack' Of The NYTimes Was The Exact Remedy MPAA Demanded With SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
So the NYT says "many users had difficulty accessing content" and Mike says "this also shows just how laughably ineffective DNS blocking/redirecting would have been in SOPA... because it's so easy to get around and many, many people did." These two statement are NOT in conflict with each other. Both can be (and most probably are) completely correct.
Sorry, but your lame 'gotcha' fell flat on it's face.
On the post: Court Sides With ACLU On Unconstitutionality Of The DHS's No-Fly List
Re: "no fly" is code for "we don't like you"
On the post: Texas Deputy Sues 911 Caller For Not 'Adequately Warning' Him Of Potential Danger Or 'Making The Premises Safe'
Re: McDonalds coffee... division by four... and stupid deputies
Pro tip: If you're going to call someone out on what you think is a mistake, and be a bit of a dick about it, it pays to make sure you're actually correct. Coz if you turn out to be completely wrong (and you are), you look spectacularly stoopid.
On the post: No, Snowden Didn't Have Any 'Other Avenues' To Blow The Whistle
Re: Whistleblower Options
I�m not sure if you�re so ignorant you actually believe that agreement would be honored, or if you know it won�t be but think you we�re stupid enough to believe you. Since you claim to be in the game, I lean towards the latter.
"So please spare me this drivel that there wasn't a safe way for him to first try the chain of command There was."
Even if it was as safe as you claim, the article clearly explains why it wouldn�t be effective. What�s the point of whistleblowing directly to people who don�t believe they�re doing anything wrong?
"The fact is that Mr. Snowden violated his oath and his employer's code of ethics."
And nobody has claimed otherwise, it�s just completely irrelevant. Most people who take these oaths don�t expect to find themselves concealing behavior that they consider to be immoral, unconstitutional and completely against the public�s interest.
"We work with courageous people everyday who have concerns about their employees conduct - but they don't go running to the Russians or the Chinese with their concerns."
He didn�t don't go running to the Russians or the Chinese with his concerns, he went public with his concerns. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the Russians or Chinese have benefited from this in any way. Feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary.
On the post: Signs Of The Times: Ohio School Hosts 'Counter-Terrorism' Bus Hijacking Drill
Re: I wouldn't be so hasty....
Still waiting for even a shred of info to back up this preposterous claim.
Next >>