That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 1st, 2015 @ 3:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not holy

    Ah, so now you want me to find your rebutting quote as well. How about 'No'?

    Both of us have made claims, but only one of us has backed them up with supporting evidence. Either present your counter-evidence, or admit that your claim is false.

  • Feb 28th, 2015 @ 3:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not holy

    Ah yes, straight to the insults, that's certainly a convincing argument.

    But hey, I've got a few minutes to burn, so here:

    'This is a cheap shot that is beneath you. Techdirt has always been an OPINION site. We express our opinion. Always have. We've never suggested that the site is some sort of bogus "objective reporting of both sides" of a story, because we think anyone doing that is misrepresenting the truth. We present our opinion.'


    There, that was Mike stating pretty clearly that TD is a site for opinions, nor 'journalistic reporting', and hence has no requirement for both sides to present their take on something(and in fact he notes that be doesn't believe that such is always a good thing).

    Now then, if you can, go ahead and provide a quote where he states the opposite.

  • Feb 28th, 2015 @ 8:40am

    Re: Re: Re: not holy

    Well, if that's the case, then you should have no problem pointing out and providing a link to where he has claimed that he's a journalist. Several in fact, if you say he 'constantly' does it.

    Or put another way, [CITATION NEEDED].

  • Feb 28th, 2015 @ 1:50am


    Yup. If you don't remove links to infringing instances of a file, then you're supporting and encouraging piracy. If you do remove links, then you're supporting and encouraging piracy and trying to hide it.

    If you need any more indication that the 'trial' he would get should he wind up in the US would be nothing but a pre-determined one, this would certainly be a prime example. They've already determined that he's guilty, now it's just a matter of twisting the law until it does what they want.

  • Feb 28th, 2015 @ 1:27am

    Re: not holy

    In your eagerness to brush this off, you seem to have missed the fact that Paypal's half of the story was included in the source article, making contacting them for 'their side of the story' redundant.

    You are also mistaken in claiming that this is a 'journalism' site, it isn't, and in fact Mike has stated this fact repeatedly and consistently. It's a site for analysis and opinions, and as such there's no absolute need to get every side of the story before writing up an article. But hey, if you want to go the extra mile, and contact Paypal for their statement on the matter, feel free.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 5:31pm

    Oh look, that line again

    So I'm curious, do you honestly not know better, or are you assuming we don't?

    The FCC's actions have nothing to do with 'taking over the internet', the purpose for the change was to apply some much needed regulations to the companies that provide access to it, and keep them from using their monopoly/duopoly positions to their own advantage, at the price of their 'customers'.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 5:21pm

    Re: Government takeover was unnecessary

    And by 'strong armed' you mean the single letter of support he sent them I'm guessing?

    Indeed, Obama certainly brought overwhelming force to the matter, it's a wonder they didn't cave to his might before now.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: Another reason Pai has no credibility

    Slight change:

    That is, he's playing to his once, current and future employers, not the public or elected officials.

    He may be getting paid by the taxpayers, but they clearly aren't the ones he's working for.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 11:06am

    'I told you to start freaking out, why are you still calm?!'

    This has just got to be driving them nuts, they spend so much time and energy trying to cause as much panic as possible, and yet people and companies refuse to panic.

    Why, it's almost as though people were able to see through their fearmongering, and in fact are better informed about the matter than they seem to think.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 5:16am

    Re: I respectfully disagree

    At some time a person like myself could come up with an idea that is absolutely ground breaking. If at any time a big business uses my idea then the time I spent on creating the innovative idea deserves compensation.

    If it can be shown with a certainty that the company did in fact use your idea for their product, then yeah, you should deserve a cut of the profits. However, if they came up with the idea on their own, with no input from you, then no, you do not deserve compensation, because you had nothing to do with it.

    People, and companies, should not be punished for having an idea just because someone else had if before them. Independent invention really needs to be more widely applied, the idea that more than one person can have a given idea, and it's wrong to give ownership of it to whoever happens to have it first, as to do otherwise puts a huge freakin' tollbooth on innovation, not to mention is based upon an idea that is flat out wrong.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 5:02am

    Re: This has been done before

    Open Jihad can only be defeated in the physical world when it has been defeated in the world of ideas. Unfortunately our leaders make no apparent effort to do this.

    Probably because they have no interest in doing so. Perpetual war, while terrible for the average person(increased taxes to cover military budgets, and money spend on the military rather than local concerns like education if nothing else), is excellent for those that can use it to make obscene amounts of money providing the guns and gear, and those that can use the never-ending conflict to justify their attempts to grab more and more power for themselves.

    It would probably be quite safe to say, that while very few citizens want a war, very few governments don't.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 4:31am

    Re: Re:

    The fanatics themselves? Don't bother, you aren't going to get anywhere with them, as like you said, they want one thing, and it's not peace on any other terms than theirs. For them, a measured, precise military response is pretty much the only way you can deal with them, because nothing less will stop them.

    However, you can make it a hell of a lot more difficult for them to replenish their numbers, and it doesn't involve shooting them up. Rather, the 'weapons' in that particular fight are more along the lines of humanitarian aid, providing clean water, food for those that need it, medical treatment, access to education, and stuff like that.

    Make the fence sitters your friends, and supporters of your side, and they are much less likely to listen when the nutjob comes calling, talking about how horrible life is and if they want to get anywhere they're going to have to take it from those around them.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 4:08am

    If you're asking, not demanding, you're not the one in charge

    Any system of 'oversight' which does not include the ability for those providing the oversight to order those that they are investigating to provide the required information, with hefty, real penalties for refusal, is in the end utterly useless oversight.

    If the ones you're supposedly providing 'oversight' over can respond to your requests with 'Eh, we'll maybe get around to it at some point', and there's nothing you can do about it other than ask again, then they're the ones in charge, not you.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 3:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Only 14 months?

    Yes we do, that's where 'Conspiracy to commit' crimes come into play, you're charging them for what they might do in the future.

  • Feb 27th, 2015 @ 3:27am

    From bad to worse

    Peace officers who are identifiable by portable video recording system data shall have unrestricted access to the data while it is retained and must be permitted to make copies.

    While the first half is bad, this part is much worse. With this in play, they'll be able to 'legally' demand people who record them to hand over their cameras/phones so they can make a 'copy', and it doesn't take a genius to know what will happen to the original at that point.

    There's also the problem of getting the camera/phone back, I can see the police taking a good week to get around to 'copying' the relevant data, just to make it clear that if you record them, you're losing your stuff for as long as they can get away with it.

    And finally, when they steal- oh I'm sorry 'borrow for evidence preservation purposes' someone's phone, if that phone happens to be encrypted, this would allow them to demand that the owner provide the password to decrypt it, and at that point it's not will they go browsing through everything on the phone, but how soon.

  • Feb 26th, 2015 @ 4:04pm

    Re: I agree with Cryptome

    Actually what I'd say is the largest reason not to do a massive data-dump is because it would be less effective, and would in fact play right in to the government's hands.

    A huge amount of info would be far too much for people to keep track of, whereas releasing it piecemeal allows people to properly grasp what's been released.

    Additionally, releasing everything all at once removes the possibility/ability to catch the government out on their lies, where they will deny something, often based upon a previous leak, only to have their counter-claims shown to be a lie by a latter leak/post.

    Finally, by releasing the information piecemeal, you maintain interest in it. If everything is released all at once, the reaction may be greater in the short term, but the government just has to weather it for a bit before people move on to something else. Releasing bits and pieces over time keeps the pressure on, and maintains interest, as there's constantly something new to read about and examine.

  • Feb 26th, 2015 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What Title II does is allow Monopolies to exist but regulates them in return.

    You mean like what we currently have, minus the regulation part?

    Regulations that will bar any new comers from popping up and keep the existing players as the only players for decades to come.

    And again, like what we already have, with ISP written laws locking out any potential competition from even developing in multiple areas/states?

    The FCC by law is an independent agency and does not have to answer to the Congress or the White House for their actions.

    Given how blatant numerous members of congress are in their support for major companies, the ISP/cable companies included, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If congress was put in charge of putting together the rules and regulations for ISP's and what they could and could not do, then it would be no different than if the ISP's themselves were writing them.

  • Feb 26th, 2015 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Secrecy is never good

    Now see, while secrecy of the text isn't good, it's not nearly as apocalyptic as some, yourself included, have tried to make it out to be. Why? Because that's how it's been for years. They didn't suddenly decide to hide everything because they knew the public wouldn't go for it, from everything I've read that's been the rule for a good number of years now.

    Personally, for me the fact that the people who've been throwing out such laughable fearmongering over the whole mess(Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly) continue to oppose it seems like a pretty good indication that whatever is in there, it's more aligned with the public than corporations. We still have to wait to see the details, but at this point at least the signs seem to be good.

  • Feb 26th, 2015 @ 12:44pm


    The fact that the two who've been trying their best to derail or delay the vote on them are now throwing giant fits, in what are either childish tantrums, or delaying actions(though what for I don't know), would seem to bode well and indicate that the rules are more public friendly than corporation friendly.

  • Feb 26th, 2015 @ 12:41pm


    Apple may deserve a bit of a black-eye for their past actions, but the problem is that if this ruling stands, you can bet that the troll will take it and go after others as well, with their now very full wallet backing their efforts.

    "We got half a billion dollars out of Apple, what makes you think you'll fare any better in court? No, you'd better pay up unless you want to be sued into the ground."

More comments from That One Guy >>