Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Techdirt Profile


About Anonymous Anonymous CowardTechdirt Insider

Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 17th, 2017 @ 5:13pm

    I bet they did it to themselves

    I think they found the additional hype beneficial, and not only allowed these recent leaks, but orchestrated them, for the additional hype. Any news is good news rides again, so to speak.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 5:37pm

    Re: 'Less money' is still vastly better than 'No money'

    Changing their business model, or method of delivery, is not the only thing they need to change. They need to change the business model for sports, professional, collegiate, Olympic, etc. as well.

    Many ignore the issue now, but I don't think that will always be the case.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 12:49pm

    Re: Well 1 corporation is easier to break up than several

    Interesting thought. Split them vertically rather than horizontally (or vice versa), like the did with AT&T. In other words, split them in such a way, say in thirds or quarters, with each new entity holding the same footprint, and in direct competition with each other.

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 4:48pm


    ..."And then folks like @YesYoureRacist can go about making them famous."

    But only if they are right about whom the charge with being racist. There are some in this world that think every single person on earth is racist. That is not correct.

    There is a difference between being discriminating and being racist. If one does not discriminate, one could not determine if they like pistachio or strawberry ice cream.

    One is racist if they do things because of those items that are listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legislative and judicial updates. Racism comes from hate, hate that is instilled, and then used.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 7:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The stupidity is in your assumption that commenters are paid by Techdirt.

    The stupidity is also in that Techdirt published something defamatory. That has yet to be proven. Once in a while the authors of the articles (they are, I think, paid to write those articles, but have no proof of that) do sometimes make an appearance in the comments, we know who they are, and their appearances in the comments are rare. The rest of us are not paid by the blog, but some of us do pay to support the blog.

    And because you continue to assert your stupidity, without taking any notice of non nasty responses, tells us that you are in fact not worth responding to. So I am done with you.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 7:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You may or may not be one of the trolls that inundate this blog (your tone suggests that you are) with disingenuous comments that try to disrupt the discussion. Your questions are stupid and express a structured ignorance over things that are plain to many. Except maybe those that are paid to express such ignorance.

    If you want to know about the insider program, sign up, you will learn all about it, and then we will be able to distinguish you from others. Even Anonymous Coward is pseudo anonymity as writing style is a give-a-way. Pick a name not already used, and remain pseudonymous, but distinguishable.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 6:28pm

    No patents, but where? How to stop other countries?

    While they make a no patent promise, how will they actually stop someone else from applying for a patent? What other countries will honor this promise?

    Given the recent history of the USPTO granting patents to things will lots of obviousness and plenty of prior art, do the Dane's actually think their no patent pledge can stop them? Then the 'prior art' comes out and ten years later, and possibly lots of lawsuits, someone tries to invalidated the patents and lots of lawyers are richer.

    Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, I just don't see it as enforceable, without international agreements. I can just imagine the USTR's response when asked.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 5:44pm

    Re: Re:

    I think you do not understand, or are obstinately feigning a lack of understanding because you are possibly paid to do so.

    Firstly, publishing and hosting are two different things. But I think you know that and constantly choose to ignore that difference.

    Secondly, something actually illegal, civilly or criminally must occur for any kind of liability. Saying something is illegal does not make it so. That is why there are laws and courts and standards of proof. But I think you know that too, see above.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 4:29pm

    Re: Re:

    Reportedly Windows ignores the hosts file, so this will only work for other OS's.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 4:14pm

    The decision here is another reminder of a third thing

    Just because someone (not necessarily the attorney named in this article) goes to law school, and passes a bar exam, does not mean they might also be a blithering idiot who will go to any length to prove whatever point they are trying to make. Even if those efforts attempt to twist and turn the law into pretzel logic that is easily identified as pretzel logic by Courts of Appeal.

    This means one should be very careful when they choose their lawyer.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 10:46am


    If it is not the official seal of the municipality, then they have no right to make the claim they did, unless they own that trademark privately, then they misrepresented themselves. Either way, the claim by the Deputy City Attorney is still ridiculous.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 8:58am

    Re: Re:

    Yes secretly. We closed our eyes, crossed our fingers, held our breath, made the selections, then opened our eyes, uncrossed our fingers and breathed normally while we made our announcement. Then we re-closed our eyes, recrossed our fingers and and took a deep breath to hold while the nation was being discombobulated with our secret deception.

  • Aug 13th, 2017 @ 4:12pm

    Re: freedom of speech

    Who is you? There are multiple respondents, each with a particular point of view.

    Universities can pick whomever they want to speak. That they should be picking a variety of points of view is at issue. That they have some ability to control the population of their campuses, to prevent them from overreacting in violent or other inappropriate ways is also at issue.

    It used to be that attendance in a college or university was about giving someone sufficient information that they might intelligently be for or against an opinion on some subject. Enough information to create critical thought.

    Today, it seems it is more about creating safe spaces where no one hears about opposing points of view. Points of view that people are free to either accept or reject, but should be heard, or at least known about, otherwise one is just being brainwashed in whatever the prevailing opinion is.

    If a university has a speaker that students don't like (even without hearing them) then the students just should not attend the speech, or possibly hold their own speech (after the fact) posing opposing points of view. The 1st Amendment allows speech, it does not force listening, nor does it prevent responding.

    It would be irresponsible for universities to present only one point of view as that does not promote critical thinking, which is, or should be one of the goals of such institutions. Without promoting critical thinking, they are just agenda pushers, and one would pick their university by picking an agenda they wish to be indoctrinated in, rather than a subject they wish to study.

  • Aug 11th, 2017 @ 10:57am

    The Real Problem

    Methinks London mayor Sadiq Khan has watched too much YouTube and has been overly influenced by that venue. The fact that he believes everything he finds on the Internet indicates a serious question about his ability to hold his office.

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 4:29pm


    Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

    Wow. Your reading skills are right up there. Are you always so selective? Do you read every third word, fourth word, or random words?

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 12:25pm

    Extinction by Obsolescence

    I think all these silos are going to make, at least some, of those silos obsolete, eventually. For example if parents don't sign up for the Disney silo, then their kids will never know that Disney exists, and have no desire to watch their shows.

    The way TV made all these things popular was by presenting a variety of content in one easy to use, and basically free (yes there were ads, but we always used them for bathroom or snack breaks when I was young). There it was, just change the channel. Now, it would be like changing the channel, but signing up and paying the fee are roadblocks that they may not be able to overcome.

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Also EULA's, Trump's NDA's, Gov. data collection

    What is illegal there is companies trying to deny individual rights, rights that may not be denied. Yes it should be illegal for companies to tell me what I can and cannot say in a contract, especially one where there is no actual negotiation, like a EULA.

    While this concept is associated with 1st Amendment concepts, the fact remains that the Constitution is a document relating to government, and what they may or may not do.

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 8:32am

    Re: Also EULA's, Trump's NDA's, Gov. data collection

    The 1st Amendment is a prohibition on the government, not private entities. We may decry speech restrictions made by private or even public entities, but it is only 'illegal' when the government does it.

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 8:28am


    You are making the assumption that Techdirt writers don't have RSS feeds, multiple sites they visit regularly, or make use of search engines to find keywords that lead them to stories they wish to write about. Just because you send them a link does not mean they had not already found that link on their own. It is also possible that many users forwarded the same link or different links referencing the same story. Should they all get recognition?

    I have personally forwarded them links, and then the story comes out and their sources are completely different than the ones I found. I did not take it personally when I was not given a 'hat tip'.

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 6:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, I should have been more clear, I was referring the usefulness and the rest to law enforcement.

More comments from Anonymous Anonymous Coward >>