btr1701’s Techdirt Profile

btr1701

About btr1701




btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 7th, 2015 @ 8:02am

    Re: Methinks...

    And the threat of a lawsuit is pretty dangerous if Cuthbert really did have an affair with the other player. If the station or the original tweeter call their bluff and say, "So go ahead and sue us", the players and the actress will open themselves up to discovery and have lawyers picking through their private lives with a microscope. If she really did cheat, not only will all that be made public, it will invalidate their defamation claim, since truthful information cannot be legally defamatory.

  • Mar 7th, 2015 @ 7:58am

    Re:

    > A network must be held responsible for any slanderous
    > information it chooses to broadcast.

    Depends on if it's actually defamatory. If she really did bang the other player, then it's true and by definition not defamation.

  • Mar 5th, 2015 @ 11:45am

    Right...

    > This would give the Grady "Showboat" Judds
    > of Florida law enforcement all the reason
    > they need to send ad hoc anti-piracy task
    > forces all over the US to shut down infringing
    > sites.

    If I was running a server in Idaho and some Florida cop showed up and attempted to shut me down, I'd laugh my ass off, tell him to go pound sand, and have *him* arrested for trespass and harassment if he refused to leave.

  • Mar 5th, 2015 @ 11:43am

    Jurisdiction

    > And it would potentially force any number
    > of site owners worldwide to give up their
    > anonymity. The bill isn't limited to sites/site
    > owners residing in Florida. All it says is
    > "electronic dissemination… to consumers in
    > this state." If a website can be accessed from
    > Florida, it conceivably falls under the jurisdiction
    > of this proposed law.

    No, it wouldn't. If I'm living in California, or Japan, or Italy, I don't subject myself to Florida's jurisdiction merely by putting a website up on the internet.

    That's ridiculous. Florida doesn't have jurisdiction throughout the known universe, no matter what idiotic laws it may pass or what they say.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Tim Cushing, closet racist?

    > Granted someone always finds a way around because
    > the Internet is so dynamic but eventually when the person
    > is caught they are severely dealt with at my base.

    For gawd's sake, the easiest way around it is to just take out your frakking personal iPhone or iPad and watch all the porn you can stomach on it with absolutely zero oversight or chance of being caught-- from an IT perspective, that is. You could always be physically caught if someone walks in on you while you're watching it.

    My agency's computers are so locked down that approximately 50% of the links on the Drudge Report are blocked on any given day, and those are all mainstream news sites. For some reason, we've blocked the entire country of Australia. If the URL ends in .au, it's blocked. So what do I do? I use my iPhone for most of my daily internetting, especially when I get a hankering for some kinky kangaroo porn.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 9:11pm

    Re: Re: Do the guards also have this same restriction

    They're not above the law in this case. These laws simply don't apply to them because they're not convicted criminals in prison.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 9:09pm

    Re: Do the guards also have this same restriction

    Why would the guards, judges, cops, and court staff be subject to these restrictions? They're not convicted felons in prison.

    I don't agree with the way this has been implemented, but it's asinine to suggest that guards and judges should have to live under the same rules and restrictions as prison inmates.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 8:53pm

    Re:

    > She appealed it all the way to the Ninth Circuit,
    > so it's not like she didn't fight it.

    "All the way"? You make it sound like a long and involved journey. It's just the next step up from the bottom. After the district (trial) court, you appeal to the circuit court of appeals, in this case the 9th Circuit.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 8:45pm

    Re: Registry

    In Georgia, there doesn't have to be any nexus to sex whatsoever to land you on the sex offender registry.

    A couple years ago, prosecutors there wanted to put a habitual thief on the sex offender registry. His lawyer, quite reasonably, objected, pointing out that stealing TVs and cash and jewelry has nothing to do with sex.

    The Georgia Supreme Court said that doesn't matter. The state can put you on the sex offender registry for anything crime it likes and you have no legal recourse.

  • Feb 12th, 2015 @ 7:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Insurnace

    > Can't afford both? Well then, do without!

    Exactly. Do without. You're not entitled to a car in this world.

    I did without for many years when I was younger for precisely that reason. I could barely afford a car, but I couldn't afford the insurance and other costs, so I did without, and still managed to get where I needed to go.

    What I didn't do is whine about it, break the law, and justify it with my personal sob story.

  • Feb 12th, 2015 @ 6:47pm

    Green

    Honestly, I never gave this much thought. Green vs. blue was always just a way for me to tell whether I was sending a free iMessage vs. an SMS text that would count against my monthly total (before I switched to unlimited, then it didn't make any difference).

  • Feb 11th, 2015 @ 2:11pm

    Hebdo

    How does this even work in the first place? How does the newsagent even know the names and addresses to give to the police? When I buy a newspaper from a newstand, I hand over the buck-fitty and the guy hands me a paper. He doesn't ask for my name, address, telephone number, or anything else.

  • Jan 25th, 2015 @ 5:08pm

    Re: Re: Insurnace

    > for some it's just not feasible for any number of reasons(perhaps
    > they can barely afford the car itself).

    Insurance is part of the cost of having a car, just like the gas and the maintenance. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford a car.

  • Jan 25th, 2015 @ 4:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Public Safety

    > Assuming you mean "driving" instead of "traveling", then actually,
    > it's a privilege... that's why we have to obtain drivers licenses in
    > order to drive a vehicle on a public road.

    Yes, isn't it great how we've just acquiesced and allowed the government to turn things that should be natural rights into mere privileges which can be revoked at the whim of some bureaucrat?

  • Jan 25th, 2015 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Re: Public Safety

    > I knew a teen who was a good driver, but due to a few tickets

    If he's still a teenager and he's already had "a few tickets", then he's not a good driver.

  • Jan 25th, 2015 @ 4:51pm

    Re: Re:

    > Over here in Germany, you might not move your car a meter
    > in public space without insurance covering damage caused by
    > you to other drivers: you don't get license plates without
    > insurance, and when your insurance gets terminated for any
    > reason, you have to return the license plates when without
    > proof of continuation.

    What if you don't need insurance? What if you have more money than the insurance company and there's no possible accident that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay for?

    Do you still have to play this silly insurance game with the government?

    (I've wondered this about Obamacare, too. Does Bill Gates actually have to sign up for a health insurance policy when he has so much money that there's no medical bill he wouldn't be able to just afford to pay outright?)

    And in the Utah case, how does the cop who stops you on the road in the middle of the night verify your net worth to know that you don't need insurance?

  • Jan 25th, 2015 @ 4:44pm

    Re: I wouldn't read into this as much as you do.

    > if the impounding is for everyone then we are all equal right?

    Not really. Most of the people driving without insurance are illegals because they can't get insurance (or drivers licenses, in many cases), so the result of a law like this will be that the majority of seized vehicles will be from illegals, which will whip the typical grievance groups up into a frenzy, and the law will most likely either be repealed or gutted, as it was in California.

  • Jan 25th, 2015 @ 4:42pm

    Not a Problem

    This will only last until they realize most seized vehicles belong to illegals. Then law will be repealed (or only enforced against citizens). It's what happened with a similar law in California.

    Can't do anything that might so much as inconvenience an illegal, dontcha know.

  • Jan 14th, 2015 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Is he a convicted felon?

    He certainly ought to be, considering his history.

  • Jan 14th, 2015 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re: Why the fight?

    > I think it's just an emotional thing with the owner. And at this
    > point he feels like he "can't back down".

    Well, that and a principled stand against gross government overreach.

More comments from btr1701 >>