Obviously you did not understand that my comment was limited solely to how the EFF attorneys reacted when the agency informed them about a concern it had with the submittal. A pro who wanted to be taken seriously would have reacted in a markedly different manner.
I'm sorry. You comment has been rejected because it's an "improper protest."
If you want to be taken seriously, please resubmit your comment without the preconceived bias against the EFF.
In addition, I find it pretty hilarious that you desire the censorship of comments because they contain words that offend your snowflake sensibilities and in the very same sentence you cry that the reporting of your comments is unfair.
Your paradox-absorbing crumple zones are simply amazing!
People commit suicide every day, but that's hardly normal behaviour.
Apparently, sexting among teens is their "normal" now days:
Just over 2,000 Australian teenagers between 16 and 18 years old were asked about their sexual habits. While more than 90 percent said they used social media, only 43 percent said they had sent a sexually explicit text and 54 percent had received one.
But when refining the search to look only at teens who were already sexually active, the stats jumped: more than 70 per cent had sent a sexual text and 84 percent admitted receiving one - and more than half of these included naked or semi-naked images. Source
Funny how you fault me for reaching an opinion based on the indictment...
I'm not faulting you for your opinion. I'm faulting you for supporting the government's actions in this case. If the government's case is as rock solid as you claim, then why all the shenanigans in preventing Dotcom from mounting a viable defense? What is happening in this case doesn't even come close to the concept of "justice" and even you should take issue with that.
As the extradition hearing nears, company lawyers say they're unable to collect emails, files and other documents they claim will refute the allegations against MegaUpload. The company's servers are hosted by Virginia-based Carpathia Hosting. The government initially locked the servers up while its agents collected evidence, but in January released all claims to them.
MegaUpload believed it would then be able to copy information from the servers itself. Rothken said he attempted to hire an electronic-discovery expert from KPMG to collect the data, but found that the cost would exceed $7 million. U.S. officials declined to release funds from MegaUpload's seized assets to pay for the operation, the lawyer said.
Are you really trying to say that the USG didn't prevent Dotcom's team from inspecting the servers for exculpatory evidence before releasing them to be destroyed? Because that is exactly what happened. It's a fact.
Are you really trying to re-write history here? One has to wonder why you would do such a thing.
I sleep confidently and soundly every night knowing the countless sacrifices they make to ensure the protection of my own liberties and rights.
I bet you would sing a different tune if some random drug informant pointed his finger at you and you had all of you possessions taken via asset forfeiture procedures before you were able to defend yourself against the false charges.
And just so you know, my opinion of you has just dropped about 20 notches AJ. I once believed you were, at the very least, a fair and just person, even when your arguments and opinions were opposed to mine. Not so much anymore. You seem to have already tried and convicted Dotcom based on one side of a story. That's something morons do.
I propose the same solution as for those `disappeared' mortgage contracts: contest the ownership in court and if it isn't quickly proved, the judge can declare a forfeit on the ownership (basically public domain-ing the content).
That is actually a viable way to gain some extra time when facing foreclosure. Basically, you ask the mortgage company to prove that they own your mortgage. With all the mortgage "bundling" and reselling that goes on (especially before the housing bubble burst) your note probably changed hands multiple times and the actual paperwork will have to be tracked down.
There are a lot of people (like myself) who have little or no interest in almost all new games for various reasons...
Yeah, I'm one of those people too. It's not about the high-end eye-candy graphics for me. It's more about the actual gameplay and interaction and how long it holds my interest before I get bored.
Why hasn't this article been deleted? I mean, it's great that you've admitted your stupidity. So why is the example of said stupidity still online?
As far as I know, Techdirt doesn't remove any articles.
You understand that a lot of people are only going to read the headline, right?
How is other people's stupidity Techdirt's fault?
So why is it still up?
As far as I know, Techdirt doesn't remove any articles.
Oh...you're probably still getting clicks, aren't you? I mean, why take something down even if it's not true when it's making money, right?
I don't know if it has changed lately, but Techdirt used to barely make enough to cover thier bandwidth costs. The Techdirt blog has historically been sort of a loss-leader for Mike's consulting business, Floor 64.
That's not the way I look at it. I paid $99 for my Kindle PaperWhite, so as far as I'm concerned, I own it.
My solution against Amazon's walled garden is simple. Switch to airplane mode and give it a hard reboot (hold power button for 30 seconds). That removes all of Amazon's annoying advertising.
Any e-book I purchase I download to my PC and remove the DRM with Calibri and side-load it to my Kindle because I prefer the actual cover images on my books as opposed to Amazon's default cover. It also gives me the advantage of having a saved copy of what I purchased just in case Amazon decides to arbitrarily remove anything from my library.
Or you can hand your camera to a stranger and hope he doesn't run off with your iPhone 6.
Or hope that the stranger doesn't sue you for copyright infringement when you post them online since the stranger would own the copyright to the photos he took.
On the post: Once Again, Political Speech Is Silenced By Copyright/ContentID
Re:
Obviously I'm not Mike, but I would start with opt-in copyright and a central database to track copyright ownership going forward.
It wouldn't help much with the mess we have on our hands now due to automatic copyright, but future generations would benefit.
On the post: USPTO Demands EFF Censor Its Comments On Patentable Subject Matter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry. You comment has been rejected because it's an "improper protest."
If you want to be taken seriously, please resubmit your comment without the preconceived bias against the EFF.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: No, funniest of week is:
Your paradox-absorbing crumple zones are simply amazing!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: No, funniest of week is:
The comment you point to has been flagged by the community and is hidden.
Isn't that what the report button is for? Your argument makes very little sense.
On the post: Police Chief Unable To Simply Do Nothing Over Reported Teen Sexting, Brings Child Porn Charges Against Four Minors
Re: Re: Re:
Apparently, sexting among teens is their "normal" now days:
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I just didn't have a comment on that part. You are entitled to your opinions.
He's got extensive legal representation in two different countries.
Huh. Last I heard his "extensive legal representation" bailed because the USG won't allow him access to his own money.
http://www.techspot.com/news/58985-kim-dotcom-legal-team-exits-megaupload-founder-runs.html
The government has the server logs, the chats and emails (which amazingly seem to have been plaintext), the bank receipts, etc.
Out of context, cherry-picked evidence....yeah, that wouldn't be real convincing to me if I was on the jury.
What relevant information was on the servers that were lost?
Good question. Now thanks to the efforts of the USG we will never actually know.
Besides, if the government destroyed evidence, that would help Dotcom. That's the last thing the government wants to do.
Yeah, you would think so. That also makes the government's actions all the more suspect to me.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not faulting you for your opinion. I'm faulting you for supporting the government's actions in this case. If the government's case is as rock solid as you claim, then why all the shenanigans in preventing Dotcom from mounting a viable defense? What is happening in this case doesn't even come close to the concept of "justice" and even you should take issue with that.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
MegaUpload believed it would then be able to copy information from the servers itself. Rothken said he attempted to hire an electronic-discovery expert from KPMG to collect the data, but found that the cost would exceed $7 million. U.S. officials declined to release funds from MegaUpload's seized assets to pay for the operation, the lawyer said.
Source: http://www.cnet.com/news/megaupload-lawyer-claims-the-feds-are-impeding-its-defense/
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you really trying to re-write history here? One has to wonder why you would do such a thing.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re:
I care.
Any asset forfeiture not tied to a criminal conviction is a travesty of justice as far as I'm concerned and that includes drug dealers.
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re:
I bet you would sing a different tune if some random drug informant pointed his finger at you and you had all of you possessions taken via asset forfeiture procedures before you were able to defend yourself against the false charges.
And just so you know, my opinion of you has just dropped about 20 notches AJ. I once believed you were, at the very least, a fair and just person, even when your arguments and opinions were opposed to mine. Not so much anymore. You seem to have already tried and convicted Dotcom based on one side of a story. That's something morons do.
On the post: No Copyright Lives Forever: How The Apathy Of IP Rights Holders About Their Copyrights Killed A Game Re-Release
Re:
That is actually a viable way to gain some extra time when facing foreclosure. Basically, you ask the mortgage company to prove that they own your mortgage. With all the mortgage "bundling" and reselling that goes on (especially before the housing bubble burst) your note probably changed hands multiple times and the actual paperwork will have to be tracked down.
http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2008/06/19/produce-the-note-how-to/
On the post: No Copyright Lives Forever: How The Apathy Of IP Rights Holders About Their Copyrights Killed A Game Re-Release
Re: Re: It makes perfect sense.
Yeah, I'm one of those people too. It's not about the high-end eye-candy graphics for me. It's more about the actual gameplay and interaction and how long it holds my interest before I get bored.
On the post: Daily Deal: The New Techdirt Deals Store
Did everyone's collective cyber-Cheerios get pissed on this morning or something?
On the post: Ted Cruz's New Presidential Campaign Donation Website Shares Security Certificate With Nigerian-Prince.com
Re: Why hasn't this article been deleted?
I mean, it's great that you've admitted your stupidity. So why is the example of said stupidity still online?
As far as I know, Techdirt doesn't remove any articles.
You understand that a lot of people are only going to read the headline, right?
How is other people's stupidity Techdirt's fault?
So why is it still up?
As far as I know, Techdirt doesn't remove any articles.
Oh...you're probably still getting clicks, aren't you?
I mean, why take something down even if it's not true when it's making money, right?
I don't know if it has changed lately, but Techdirt used to barely make enough to cover thier bandwidth costs. The Techdirt blog has historically been sort of a loss-leader for Mike's consulting business, Floor 64.
On the post: Amazon Quietly Bricked Jailbroken Kindle Devices Last Year
Re: Not sold, just rented...
That's not the way I look at it. I paid $99 for my Kindle PaperWhite, so as far as I'm concerned, I own it.
My solution against Amazon's walled garden is simple. Switch to airplane mode and give it a hard reboot (hold power button for 30 seconds). That removes all of Amazon's annoying advertising.
Any e-book I purchase I download to my PC and remove the DRM with Calibri and side-load it to my Kindle because I prefer the actual cover images on my books as opposed to Amazon's default cover. It also gives me the advantage of having a saved copy of what I purchased just in case Amazon decides to arbitrarily remove anything from my library.
On the post: Ted Cruz's New Presidential Campaign Donation Website Shares Security Certificate With Nigerian-Prince.com
Re: Re: Nasty Case of FU
So what?
If you are implying that Christians don't swear then your choice of words is pretty ironic.
On the post: Mary Kay Goes After Retailmenot For Promoting Mary Kay
Re:
Hmmm...might even be funnier though.
On the post: Mary Kay Goes After Retailmenot For Promoting Mary Kay
There's a joke in there somewhere....
On the post: The Great Selfie-Stick Ban Of 2015 Has Commenced
Re: In my day...
Or hope that the stranger doesn't sue you for copyright infringement when you post them online since the stranger would own the copyright to the photos he took.
Next >>