I'm guessing you don't even see the irony in claiming there's a "cultural warfare against men" and then accusing others of being snowflakes. Get over yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Yeah, I don't get your point here, Mike.
"Google provides a valuable public service, whereas Uber seems to be engaged in a full-out sprint lately to see how fast they can reach, and then surpass, Comcast levels of corporate evil in the public eye."
This is a poor comparison. Comcast's customer hate the service they get from them because it's generally awful, but Uber's customers generally love the service they receive because it's so much better than the typical taxi experience. People's opinion of their corporate performance is a completely different thing.
"Because it's pretty trivial to think of cases where fraud charges are justified when copyright infringements is not."
Actually it's safe to say that most fraud cases have nothing to do with copyright. But in this case the USG's claim of fraud is entirely predicated on MegaUpload committing copyright infringement. Feel free to explain why you think fraud took place in this case if copyright infringement didn't.
Those comments, that's some of the lamest sockpuppetry I've ever read. I thought he said he was really clever? A smart person wouldn't resort to such pathetic attempts to gain support. Or perhaps he has such a low opinion of everyone else's intellect he thought they'd be believable.
But he's not in construction, he's a developer and a marketer. He doesn't need to know anything about construction (and likely doesn't know much), he just has to pay the right people who do know. If you start with a lot of inherited money, hard things become much easier because you can afford to mess up and do it again. His string of failures and bankruptcies is evidence of that.
An even if he did have non-moronic qualities in his 'profession', at pretty much everything else he has clearly demonstrated moron-levels of ignorance, incompetence and all round general uselessness. And apparently a whole lot of people thought that qualified him for president...
"First, you are misguided because it's a temporary ban..."
If you think the intention was for this to actually be temporary, you were probably also gullible enough to believe all of Trump's other promises and vote for him. The next four years are going to be disappointing for you...
"...and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don't."
More proof of your gullibility. The current vetting process has been shown to be very thorough and very effective. What exactly do you think needs to be improved? Where's your evidence of significant failure? You have no idea, you're just parroting Trump talking points.
"...trying to say that the country doesn't have the right to do that to protect their citizens is... misguided."
Trying to suggest that the EO would have actually increased protection to US citizens is also misguided. And stupid.
*"First, you are misguided because it's a temporary ban..."*
If you think the intention was for this to actually be temporary, you were probably also gullible enough to believe all of Trump's other promises and vote for him. The next four years are going to be disappointing for you...
*"...and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don't."*
More proof of your gullibility. The current vetting process has been shown to be very thorough and very effective. What exactly do you think needs to be improved? Where's your evidence of significant failure? You have no idea, you're just parroting Trump talking points.
*"...trying to say that the country doesn't have the right to do that to protect their citizens is... misguided."*
Trying to suggest that the EO would have actually increased protection to US citizens is also misguided. And stupid.
"Does Techdirt understand that I don't want to see article after article hysterically screaming about Trump?"
Do you understand that you don't actually have to read anything here? Do you realise how stupid it sounds to criticize a website for making you see words you don't like?
"...I'm pretty sure all the elections were won that way... what is your point, exactly?"
How about the fact that he got less votes but still won. You don't think that highlights a massive fundamental flaw in the system? A failure rate of nearly 9% should be considered atrocious for a supposedly democratic voting system.
"The person you really wanted to win didn't, and now after 200+ years you want to retroactively change the rules?"
Why would you assume this is a recent change of heart and that something needs to happen retroactively. Neither were implied or suggested.
Nothing can change the result, but that doesn't mean people should continue to highlight how it actually happened. It's also exactly the right time to point out the Electoral College system is grossly outdated and should be harshly critisized for once again producing a result that goes against the will of the majority. Worse, this time it installed a narcissistic, egotistical, ignorant, incompetent, autocratic wannabe-dictator.
*"NO-ONE absolutely no-one is going to turn this country around in 30 days, hell 360 days."*
And nobody except Trump apologists is claiming that's what was expected. While the speed of his awfulness is surprising, it's *what* he's doing that is upsetting so many people, not *when* he's doing it. He's setting in motion changes that will likely have calamitous long-term effects if not challenged. Why the hell should people wait for the damage to become obvious and undeniable before acting?
*"But doing the same old thing and relying on the same only shit (both sides of the political isle) isn't working. At least this is different."*
A few times I've tried to fix something wrong with my car, but it didn't work. So I looked for a *better* solution. I did not set my car on fire and then say "Well that's different." It's stupid and simplistic to think that because something is different it must be better. If you wanted a better president than Clinton then you should've voted her in and had another go in four years.
*"Whether its good or bad is yet to be determined, I'm just not going to be so quick jump on the "we're fucked" bandwagon yet, at least not until we actually are."*
Then I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you might not be very smart, or at least very ignorant of history. Trump is not some amazing innovator, all the terrible things he's doing have been done by someone at some time around the world (some still are) and so it's not hard to use rational thought to predict likely outcomes. It's not rocket science.
*"A quote that is VERY unfriendly with the pro regulation zealots that infest this place!"*
You either have a very selective memory or your implied claim of being a regular reader is somewhat exaggerated... Whenever abuse of copyright is discussed, Techdirt writers and regular commenters are inevitably labeled 'pirates' with no respect for the law. Whenever the disruptive nature of Uber is discussed, we again are a bunch of scofflaws for believing taxis regs should not apply to ride sharing. That does not square with your claim. There are hundreds of stories here criticizing the harm caused by both excessive regulation in some areas and insufficient protection by the law in others. The fact that you refer to (paraphrasing) an 'infestation of pro-regulation zealots' is far more suggestive of zealotry on your part. Most people here are far more broad-minded on the topic of regulation than you clearly are.
"My city is fighting against cooperating on the deportation of criminal illegal aliens. Not just illegals who came across the border illegally, but who committed other crimes once they got here-- gang crime, robbery, rape, even murder."
Not even sure how you can make such a dumb claim without realizing how dumb it is. Nobody is fighting against deporting people who have committed robbery, rape, murder or other serious crimes. I can't believe that has to be explained.
"Trump is legally entitled to limit immigration entry..."
You put the word 'legally' in the wrong place. What you mean to say is 'Trump is entitled to limit immigration entry legally'. As multiple courts have clearly stated, he has not done that.
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
"Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in."
From what you've written you don't sound at all like someone who spends enough time hanging out at Social Security offices to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy. So either you've missed sharing some vital info with us that would make your claim a lot more believable, or you're making shit up to strengthen your utterly amoral argument. Feel free to clarify.
Personally I think the taxi strike was a terrible idea. Showing support for a worthy cause is admirable, but inconveniencing hundreds (thousands?) of travelers while having zero impact on the people you're protesting is counter-productive, especially when another company cops undeserved backlash.
On the post: Silicon Valley Needs To Get Its Act Together On Sexual Harassment & Discrimination
Re: Re: witch hunt
I'm guessing you don't even see the irony in claiming there's a "cultural warfare against men" and then accusing others of being snowflakes. Get over yourself.
On the post: Vice President Fails To Demand An FBI Investigation After His Private Email Account Is Hacked
Re: Oh please...
"AOL email servers aren't quite the same thing as a personal server that was ran from out of your house."
Yeah, apparently AOL's servers are easier to hack...
On the post: Disappointing To See Google's Waymo Sue Over Patents
Re: Re: Re: Yeah, I don't get your point here, Mike.
"Google provides a valuable public service, whereas Uber seems to be engaged in a full-out sprint lately to see how fast they can reach, and then surpass, Comcast levels of corporate evil in the public eye."
This is a poor comparison. Comcast's customer hate the service they get from them because it's generally awful, but Uber's customers generally love the service they receive because it's so much better than the typical taxi experience. People's opinion of their corporate performance is a completely different thing.
On the post: Sean Spicer Launches Witch Hunt Over The 'Secure' App He Just Said Was No Big Deal
Re:
Maybe you should be more cautious with the snark in case you completely misunderstand the story and post a silly comment that makes you look foolish.
On the post: New Zealand Court Says Kim Dotcom Still Eligible For Extradition... But Not Over Copyright
Re: Such low standards of journalism!
"Because it's pretty trivial to think of cases where fraud charges are justified when copyright infringements is not."
Actually it's safe to say that most fraud cases have nothing to do with copyright. But in this case the USG's claim of fraud is entirely predicated on MegaUpload committing copyright infringement. Feel free to explain why you think fraud took place in this case if copyright infringement didn't.
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Survival Fund
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An even if he did have non-moronic qualities in his 'profession', at pretty much everything else he has clearly demonstrated moron-levels of ignorance, incompetence and all round general uselessness. And apparently a whole lot of people thought that qualified him for president...
On the post: Techdirt Survival Fund: I Support Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FBI Arresting More Americans For Targeting Muslims, Than Muslims For Targeting Americans
Re: Misguided
"First, you are misguided because it's a temporary ban..."
If you think the intention was for this to actually be temporary, you were probably also gullible enough to believe all of Trump's other promises and vote for him. The next four years are going to be disappointing for you...
"...and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don't."
More proof of your gullibility. The current vetting process has been shown to be very thorough and very effective. What exactly do you think needs to be improved? Where's your evidence of significant failure? You have no idea, you're just parroting Trump talking points.
"...trying to say that the country doesn't have the right to do that to protect their citizens is... misguided."
Trying to suggest that the EO would have actually increased protection to US citizens is also misguided. And stupid.
On the post: FBI Arresting More Americans For Targeting Muslims, Than Muslims For Targeting Americans
Re: Misguided
If you think the intention was for this to actually be temporary, you were probably also gullible enough to believe all of Trump's other promises and vote for him. The next four years are going to be disappointing for you...
*"...and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don't."*
More proof of your gullibility. The current vetting process has been shown to be very thorough and very effective. What exactly do you think needs to be improved? Where's your evidence of significant failure? You have no idea, you're just parroting Trump talking points.
*"...trying to say that the country doesn't have the right to do that to protect their citizens is... misguided."*
Trying to suggest that the EO would have actually increased protection to US citizens is also misguided. And stupid.
On the post: Court Unanimously Keeps Lower Court's Injunction Against Trump's Immigration Order In Place
Re:
"Does Techdirt understand that I don't want to see article after article hysterically screaming about Trump?"
Do you understand that you don't actually have to read anything here? Do you realise how stupid it sounds to criticize a website for making you see words you don't like?
On the post: Court Unanimously Keeps Lower Court's Injunction Against Trump's Immigration Order In Place
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...I'm pretty sure all the elections were won that way... what is your point, exactly?"
How about the fact that he got less votes but still won. You don't think that highlights a massive fundamental flaw in the system? A failure rate of nearly 9% should be considered atrocious for a supposedly democratic voting system.
"The person you really wanted to win didn't, and now after 200+ years you want to retroactively change the rules?"
Why would you assume this is a recent change of heart and that something needs to happen retroactively. Neither were implied or suggested.
Nothing can change the result, but that doesn't mean people should continue to highlight how it actually happened. It's also exactly the right time to point out the Electoral College system is grossly outdated and should be harshly critisized for once again producing a result that goes against the will of the majority. Worse, this time it installed a narcissistic, egotistical, ignorant, incompetent, autocratic wannabe-dictator.
On the post: President Trump's White House Reaching New Lows In Accountability And Transparency
Re: Re: Re: Re: 10 steps to Fascism..
And nobody except Trump apologists is claiming that's what was expected. While the speed of his awfulness is surprising, it's *what* he's doing that is upsetting so many people, not *when* he's doing it. He's setting in motion changes that will likely have calamitous long-term effects if not challenged. Why the hell should people wait for the damage to become obvious and undeniable before acting?
*"But doing the same old thing and relying on the same only shit (both sides of the political isle) isn't working. At least this is different."*
A few times I've tried to fix something wrong with my car, but it didn't work. So I looked for a *better* solution. I did not set my car on fire and then say "Well that's different." It's stupid and simplistic to think that because something is different it must be better. If you wanted a better president than Clinton then you should've voted her in and had another go in four years.
*"Whether its good or bad is yet to be determined, I'm just not going to be so quick jump on the "we're fucked" bandwagon yet, at least not until we actually are."*
Then I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you might not be very smart, or at least very ignorant of history. Trump is not some amazing innovator, all the terrible things he's doing have been done by someone at some time around the world (some still are) and so it's not hard to use rational thought to predict likely outcomes. It's not rocket science.
On the post: The Biggest Advocates For An Imperial Executive Branch Are Suddenly Freaking Out Over Trump
Re: Re: This is why...
Ugh, I really hate this Markdown formatting system. At least make it default instead of having to manually select it every time!
On the post: The Biggest Advocates For An Imperial Executive Branch Are Suddenly Freaking Out Over Trump
Re: This is why...
You either have a very selective memory or your implied claim of being a regular reader is somewhat exaggerated... Whenever abuse of copyright is discussed, Techdirt writers and regular commenters are inevitably labeled 'pirates' with no respect for the law. Whenever the disruptive nature of Uber is discussed, we again are a bunch of scofflaws for believing taxis regs should not apply to ride sharing. That does not square with your claim. There are hundreds of stories here criticizing the harm caused by both excessive regulation in some areas and insufficient protection by the law in others. The fact that you refer to (paraphrasing) an 'infestation of pro-regulation zealots' is far more suggestive of zealotry on your part. Most people here are far more broad-minded on the topic of regulation than you clearly are.
On the post: San Francisco Police Department Kicks FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force To The Curb
Re: Re: Re:
"My city is fighting against cooperating on the deportation of criminal illegal aliens. Not just illegals who came across the border illegally, but who committed other crimes once they got here-- gang crime, robbery, rape, even murder."
Not even sure how you can make such a dumb claim without realizing how dumb it is. Nobody is fighting against deporting people who have committed robbery, rape, murder or other serious crimes. I can't believe that has to be explained.
On the post: Basically The Entire Tech Industry Signs Onto A Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Exec Order
Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
You put the word 'legally' in the wrong place. What you mean to say is 'Trump is entitled to limit immigration entry legally'. As multiple courts have clearly stated, he has not done that.
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
"Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in."
From what you've written you don't sound at all like someone who spends enough time hanging out at Social Security offices to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy. So either you've missed sharing some vital info with us that would make your claim a lot more believable, or you're making shit up to strengthen your utterly amoral argument. Feel free to clarify.
On the post: The Massive Overreaction To Uber's Response To JFK Protests
Good intent, bad execution
On the post: The Massive Overreaction To Uber's Response To JFK Protests
Re:
Next >>