btr1701’s Techdirt Profile

btr1701

About btr1701




btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ah, you're one of those jackasses who edits what people say and pretends that's what they meant all along, huh?

    But even with your edit, you can sod off if you think I should voluntarily forego all entertainment to support your personal agenda. Ain't gonna happen.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 11:50am

    Re: Re: Hollander

    > 1) You don't like the ladies night at your local pub?
    > Well then - don't go there.

    Utterly irrelevant as to whether such practices violate state/federal anti-discrimination laws.

    > 2) You think the draft is a good idea?
    > Have a look at what went down in the 60's

    I never said the draft was a good idea or a bad idea. I merely stated that if we're going to have a draft (or registration for a draft), it should be applied equally to all citizens.

    > If you can come up with some valid points, perhaps they
    > would be worth discussion

    All evidence so far indicates that you wouldn't know a valid point if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 11:16am

    Hollander

    > Or the time he sued a bunch of night clubs for violating
    > the 14th Amendment by having "Ladies' Nights." Or the
    > time he sued Columbia University for offering women's
    > studies courses. Or the time he wanted to file a lawsuit
    > to force women to register for the draft.

    His suit against the media over Trump coverage is deluded, as was his suit against Columbia, claiming feminism classes are a religion and therefore unconstitutional.

    However, he's got a point when it comes to some of his other legal gripes. This guy is a kook, but even a kook makes a good point every now and then.

    Why should a night club be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender by having "ladies nights" and charging men more than women? We don't put up with that kind of discrimination by businesses in any other context. Why here? If the same night club started hosting "white people nights" where whites got in free and everyone else had to pay, they'd be shut down and sued into oblivion instantly. What's the legal argument that discriminating on the basis of gender-- in contravention of state and federal laws that prohibit it-- is okay if it's a night club trying to lure in female customers?

    And he's also right about the draft. Even when women were banned from combat roles, there was still plenty to do in the military that didn't involve combat. Remember Rosie the Riveter? And the military always needs administrative personnel to organize and file the mountains of paperwork it generates. (And now that the Department of Defense has opened up combat positions to women, even that weak argument for exemption goes out the window.)

    If we've reached a point of national crisis where we're forcing men against their will into the army to fight a war, then women can and should do their part as well. They enjoy the privileges and benefits that citizenship in this country bestows. They have an equal responsibility to help preserve it when necessary. There's no reason why they should be exempt from the draft or registration for it.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    > PS: thanks to the fucking idiots who paid money to see
    > the latest Star Wars and Marvel movies, in less than 5
    > years, we're going to see how those billions are spent
    > when copyright law comes up for renewed extensions.

    Huh? I shouldn't go to movies I enjoy because you're worried copyright law will get renewed in a decade or so?

    Get bent.

  • Aug 3rd, 2016 @ 8:19am

    Statute of Frauds

    > Now, to be clear, a verbal agreement is just as binding under the law as a
    > written down contract

    That's not completely true. Under the Statute of Frauds, which has been incorporated into the Uniform Commercial Code, certain contracts *must* be in writing in order to be enforceable. Two examples: any contract for more than $500, and any contract involving the sale or transfer of real property.

  • Aug 3rd, 2016 @ 8:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: If they are going to take medals away from athletes...

    Thousands? All of Japan isn't a thousand miles long.

  • Aug 3rd, 2016 @ 7:37am

    Me too

    The exact same thing happened to me, except the teenagers that banged on my door asking to be let into my backyard to catch their critter did at 01:15 in the morning, waking me up out of a deep sleep. A couple of days later, I found a couple of kids climbing my fence. They didn't even bother to knock and ask.

    Difference between me and this New Jersey guy is that I don't blame the game makers. I blame the little shits whose parents didn't raise them well enough to know how to behave better.

  • Jul 22nd, 2016 @ 3:31pm

    Need

    Associated Press: Police in Baton Rouge used armored "bear cats" to safely collect and transport officers who had been shot.

    Equipment that TechDirt says cops don't need.

  • Jul 11th, 2016 @ 2:18pm

    AI

    > a strict "right to an explanation" seems like it may
    > actually create limits on machine learning and AI in
    > Europe -- potentially hamstringing projects by requiring
    > them to be limited to levels of human understanding

    "Skynet Averted by Robust EU Bureaucracy"

  • Jul 11th, 2016 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > For instance say the person being tried is of a
    > particular race.

    When would that not be the case?

  • Jul 7th, 2016 @ 11:24am

    Re:

    After the first visit from the cops telling him to stop posting that sort of thing, he should have gotten in his car and driven outside the city limits and posted to his heart's content.

    Urbana cops only have jurisdiction over "crimes" that happen in Urbana.

  • Jun 29th, 2016 @ 6:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today

    > Seriously? That's nuts.

    Yep. I know of a both a private company and a police department in my area that require applicants to log in to their Facebook accounts during the interview and then step away from the computer while they peruse your account.

    If you tell them you don't have a Facebook account, they assume that you deleted it in anticipation of the interview so that they wouldn't find anything negative about you. (Or that you're not socialized properly for the modern era, i.e., weird.)

  • Jun 27th, 2016 @ 7:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Absolutely, totally voluntary... today

    > Well they know EVERYONE is on FB, and anyone who says otherwise is lying
    > and needs cavity searches.

    Lack of a Facebook or Twitter account is already seen as a sign of dishonesty and/or odd behavior by many employers during the hiring process.

  • Jun 5th, 2016 @ 9:37am

    EU

    Simple question: If an American tweets something that is legal in the US but illegal in the EU, will it be banned?

  • May 28th, 2016 @ 2:43pm

    Re: Re: I think we'd need to not only fire the transgressors...

    > Judge Hanen did effectively "disbar" the out-of-state attorneys involved in that
    > he revoked their pro hac vice status, meaning that they can't practice in Texas
    > at least.

    Pro hac vice status is granted on a case-by-case basis. So revoking it for this case doesn't mean they can never again practice in Texas. It just means they can't practice in Texas on *this* case.

  • May 28th, 2016 @ 2:40pm

    Limited

    > Unfortunately, the court is limited to what it can do in response to
    > the DOJ's misconduct.

    Not as limited as you imply. The court could hold the lawyers in contempt, make them serve some time in jail and fine them personally for their dishonesty, and it could refer them all to their various bar associations for disciplinary action, to include disbarment.

    The fact that court chose to do none of this in favor of some in-service ethics classes, which the attendees will spending either sleeping through or playing on their smart-phones, indicates the court didn't actually find outright lying by the government to be very troubling at all.

  • May 13th, 2016 @ 3:13pm

    Re: Re: Us Tracking Them Tracking Us

    > Roll down a residential street at dinner time and now you
    > have identified the plates to home addresses.

    One of the reasons I keep my car closed up in my garage whenever I'm home.

  • May 13th, 2016 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    *Their

  • May 13th, 2016 @ 3:08pm

    Re:

    > Smash the car with a baseball bat and see who then
    > complains.

    Seems like a rather radical and self-defeating way of proving your point, since no matter who complains (or even if no one complains), you've committed a crime, possibly a felony.

    But hey, you can sit in your cell with a smug look on your face the whole time, 'cause you sure showed them, didtcha?

  • May 13th, 2016 @ 11:43am

    Messy

    This article is very messily written, which makes figuring out the facts difficult.

    First, there's the inclusion of ridiculous hyperbole, which seems to be a requirement for all media these days:

    "...an attempt to disguise the true purpose of the
    cameras mounted up front, which are high-powered
    automatic license plate readers."

    So what exactly is the difference between a high-powered LPR and a low- or medium-powered LPR? What function does "high-powered" serve here other than to increase the drama factor of the article?

    Then we're told this:

    "Blaze also spotted a Pennsylvania State Police parking
    placard on the dash."

    Then this:

    "The city's fleet manager denied the vehicle belonged
    to the State Police."

    If the placard said state police, why would you go to the *city*'s fleet manager to track it down. Wouldn't you make inquiries with the state?

    And in the end, it turns out that the vehicle was a city vehicle after all, which makes the initial claim that it had a state police placard on the dash suspect.

    Then there are the assumptions the author makes that are unwarranted. In criticizing the attempt to disguise an SUV, we get this:

    "Google tends to use vehicles with lower profiles,
    better gas mileage, and very distinctive
    branding/camera setups. Anyone stupid enough to believe
    a hulking SUV with a city parking permit was a Google
    Maps vehicle..."

    Here a clue to the author: not everyone is as immersed in the tech world as you are and don't know (or care) what kind of vehicles Google uses, so an average Joe or Jane who sees an SUV on street with a Google logo on the side is not "stupid" for not realizing that's not the type of vehicle Google employs.

More comments from btr1701 >>