Cdaragorn’s Techdirt Profile

cdaragorn

About Cdaragorn




Cdaragorn’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 14th, 2018 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re:

    This is a common misunderstanding of the Constitution. As another commenter pointed out judges have made it clear in the past that this is not true, but I'd like to give some understanding as to why.

    The whole point of the Constitution when it was written was to address how people should be treated, period. We only have power to enforce it's principals within our borders, but we should be abiding according to those principals at all times regardless of who we are engaging with or where.

    Yes US citizens do have more protection than non-citizens, but it does still afford protection to everyone regardless.

  • Feb 14th, 2018 @ 8:06am

    Re: Living here illegally is an illegal act

    " for anyone of first nation blood since this was their land before we stole it"

    I get what you're going for, but this is a classic basic fallacy. All one has to do is take it one step further: who'd they steal this country from?

    If we followed this kind of logic then everyone would be able to claim citizenship in multiple countries around the world. Trying to pretend that ONLY one group ever invaded anyone ever or that one group is entirely in the wrong making another entire in the right is just ridiculous. History does not bear your perception out.

  • Feb 14th, 2018 @ 8:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Bit one sided

    That's funny, because that article shows that what you're implying isn't true at all.

    He paid for the crime, assuming the article is actually true. So he's NOT a criminal anymore and cannot be punished or treated as if he is. This would explain why the JUDGE evaluating this case wouldn't bring this issue up.

  • Feb 14th, 2018 @ 7:52am

    Re:

    Go back and read the article again, you clearly missed a lot the first time through.
    What the judge called unconstitutional had NOTHING to do with their deporting him. It had to do with how they treated him as they did that.
    You should also go do some basic research into what it means to hold a green card. A person can be in the United States LEGALLY without being a citizen. Your assumptions are all wrong here.

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 7:49pm

    Re: Arrest all of 'em

    You're free to use clips from any of those sources just fine. As long as you weren't the one who broke the DRM you are almost certainly covered by fair use.

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 2:15pm

    Re:

    I definitely agree, but I think the DMCA's bar is actually and sadly high compared to some of the issues the article hinted at.

    At least with the DMCA you're allowed to fight it. Some countries have decided that if you try to fight it you're instantly liable even on the weak standard of whether the content was true or not.

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 7:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.

    Drugs being found does not make the "hunch" accurate. The clean van with two passengers has nothing whatsoever to do with drugs being in the vehicle. That's a ridiculous assertion to make.

    Letting criminals off when cops commit criminal acts is not a bad trend. It's a necessary defense against violation of our basic constitutionally defined rights. We accept that in order to enjoy freedom some criminals will be allowed to go free.

  • Feb 2nd, 2018 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re:

    Please point to where the court actually made an effort to find out if there was any truth at all in the accusations. So far it just looks like you're claiming courts should just declare all defendants in all civil suits guilty because someone said they did something wrong, which even if you think is ok I think most of the rest of us consider absurd.

  • Feb 2nd, 2018 @ 11:38am

    Re:

    It makes perfect sense, you just don't want to accept it.

    Making the access providers responsible would be like making the city responsible for someone using its streets to transport drugs. The drugs are never kept on the streets or anywhere that the city has access to, yet we're claiming they should be able to tell that there were drugs in that car? That's the line of reasoning that makes no sense.

    The repeat infringement policy has never been applied to access providers in the past, so what makes you say there's no doubt it should apply to them? It applies to those actually hosting (or holding onto) the infringing material. Trying to apply it to anyone else is just looking for a cheap/easy way to get around having to punish those who actually did something wrong.

  • Feb 1st, 2018 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    While I understand why those who choose to be atheists really really really don't want to believe that it is a belief, that doesn't make it what you're describing.

    Atheism is not a lack of religious belief. It is the belief that there is no God or other similar being. Trying to twist that into being a "lack of religious belief" is disingenuous at best. You have chosen to take up a belief on a religious subject. That by definition is a religious belief.

    Lack of religious belief would be someone that just doesn't have an opinion or belief either way. Atheism distinctly does not fit that description.

  • Jan 9th, 2018 @ 7:54am

    Re:

    You're welcome to fight this battle on only one small front. If you read more than just this one article you'd know that you basically have no chance of winning on that front since ISP's have long since written their own state laws to stop you, but go ahead anyway.

    The rest of us choose to fight this fight on every front we can. We're absolutely for your idea no matter how much you want to pretend to yourself that we're not. We're just also for the other methods our system has provided to protect against monopolist control over necessary communications networks.

  • Jan 2nd, 2018 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Scarlet Letter

    Any positions outrageousness is purely a matter of opinion. Not clearly stating that you are being sarcastic perfectly legitimately leaves reasonable people wondering if you are really that hateful/whatever extreme opinion you've chosen to express.

    It is not their fault for not seeing what you didn't make clear. That is entirely on you.

  • Dec 19th, 2017 @ 10:33am

    Re: This is the reason for the March through the institutions

    No one said that we like what these platforms are doing. That's not the point at all.

    The problem always comes down to the fact that in order for ANYONE ANYWHERE to have any chance at having the freedom to speak, we must allow all private parties to enjoy both the freedom to speak and the freedom to choose whether or not to listen. In that world, these platforms cannot maintain their dominance if they stop listening to speech that most people consider important. If most people do not consider your speech important that certainly entails its own problems, but also means that the platform choosing to reject your speech really doesn't change anything.

    It also means that you can still get your speech out there no matter what any other private parties say. You cannot censor one party without censoring all parties. The freedom to speak is very much an all or nothing rule: you either have it or you don't.

  • Dec 18th, 2017 @ 9:49am

    Re:

    You might want to read the rest of the article before posting. Their use is pretty blatantly fair use, and fair use of something without their permission is not disrespecting their copyright. Suing someone when they use your copyright fairly is.

  • Dec 13th, 2017 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: It isn't

    I agree, but that's my entire point. By doing this they're creating more ways the safe can be compromised. And these new ways can be done without physical access to the safe. That makes this doubly insane to even consider doing.

  • Dec 13th, 2017 @ 10:57am

    It isn't

    To put it bluntly, it isn't.

    There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever make a gun safe able to connect to any kind of device, anywhere for any reason. If you can't get to the safe to open it, what possible reason could you have to open it?
    If connections like this could be perfectly secured then I suppose some might like the "convenience", but I can't even see an argument behind that. Again, the only point of opening the safe is to GET the gun.
    The fact that you can't perfectly secure applications just kills this idea before it even gets started. It's bad enough that many modern gun safes have put fingerprint readers on them for "convenience" despite those being one of the easiest security features to break on the planet. We don't need and should never want more ways for someone else to be able to hack open access our firearms.

  • Dec 9th, 2017 @ 8:25am

    Re:

    Unfortunately you've made the false assumption that you represent the general public. I can assure you that you do not come even close to that.

    I've never been to any con anywhere mainly because I don't have the money for entry, though I live very close to SLC. At no point in my life have I ever thought that the many different comic cons I've heard of were in any way associated with each other.

    That honestly seems like a really silly assumption. Why would two events in locations hundreds or sometimes thousands of miles away from each other be in any way associated with each other just because they use a similar descriptive term in their name?

    If we were talking about something like "McDonald's" or even "Burger King", something that was clearly a NAME and not a DESCRIPTION, I could understand making that connection. Even not understanding where the con part of comic con came from, it's clearly a description of WHAT the event is, not WHO is putting it on.

  • Dec 6th, 2017 @ 5:47pm

    Re: Just Wow!

    So a video of a Democrat talking about how much success the Democratic party has had in her state....what exactly do you find surprising or even noteworthy about that?

  • Dec 5th, 2017 @ 9:07am

    Re:

    Really? So because they live on the same soil that Hitler did, they're Hitler?

  • Dec 5th, 2017 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Spelling error

    He obviously doesn't understand magic. I mean how many times have we watched magic blocks busted wide open by those smart enough to trick the magic or even just strong enough to blast their way through it?

    Magic locks are the worst.

More comments from Cdaragorn >>