trollificus’s Techdirt Profile

trollificus

About trollificus




trollificus’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 30th, 2017 @ 9:41pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's ALWAYS more profitable to collude than to compete.

    Though there does exist the inexplicable race-to-the-bottom competition to become the most-hated/"best customer raping" company in the country. I suspect the execs just engage in that for funsies, though.

  • Mar 30th, 2017 @ 8:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    Sorry if this has been dealt with above, but...

    "Of course the sudden realization that government oversight of giant, anti-competitive corporations is sometimes necessary and even good for consumers has arrived a little late for most of us."

    Umm...the problems which you so eagerly and smugly require government regulation, specifically the lack of competition in the broadband space, ARE CREATED BY OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. There is no "capitalist" or "market forces" or "invisible hand" to debunk or ridicule.

    Perhaps if you were saying (accurately), "We need SOME government regulations to protect us from the government selling out to corporate lobbying efforts." it would be easier to see how bullshit your "proof" of the need for more government regulation actually is. Or maybe not.

  • Mar 28th, 2017 @ 3:37pm

    Re:

    May all the people who worked in 20th Century-style A&R for the labels can become cab drivers instead. Ohh...

  • Mar 26th, 2017 @ 10:59pm

    Re: on the basis of an individual case,

    Well, the first step is obtaining the power, under the guise of, of course, national security.

    The second step is USING the power for more...personal gains than just the security of the nation.

    Step One has been ongoing for quite a while, not surprising to see the intelligence community flex its power now.

  • Mar 23rd, 2017 @ 8:15pm

    Re:

    Well, I see your point, and that's pretty much what I do.

    Then again, fuck you. The eBook prices are still spit-in-your-face, piss-in-your-beer insulting ripoffs. They could make money from me by pricing reasonably, but THEY FUCKING WON'T. Screw 'em. Not a penny from me.

  • Mar 19th, 2017 @ 6:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Response to: That Anonymous Coward on Mar 18th, 2017 @ 1:26pm

    "Many of the women and girls in the sex trade are not there willingly."

    Ah, a rigorous statistical analysis:"Many", eh? Read (in the most recent issue of REASON) about Cross X Country, the giant, multi-agency sting/raid/bust operation that netted "less than many" unwilling prostitutes, and "so less than many it was almost zero" UNDERAGE ones.

    Indicating the problem, while allowing that forcing little girls to have sex is bad m'kay?, is NOT a gigantic epidemic requiring a moral panic to deal with. Even less than alcohol was prior to Prohibition or drugs right after Prohibition ended.

    Put it this way...the conventional wisdom is that the "Red Scare" was a cynical attempt to increase gov't power by frightening the public. Yet there WERE more actual Russian agents/plants within the gov't than were found "underage forced prostitutes" in this recent massive (and expensive) undertaking.

    Keep saying "but it's illegal!" all you want, you still have to account for the actual size of the problem and the proportionality of the response.

  • Mar 19th, 2017 @ 5:54am

    Re: Re: Election choice between horrible and worse

    Bureau of Departments.

  • Mar 8th, 2017 @ 7:55am

    Re: Viacom is looking to be the canary in the mine

    Viacom has running shows?

  • Mar 8th, 2017 @ 7:42am

    Re: Number of Subscribers vs. Number of Viewers

    ^ This, exactly. They would be in a much better financial situation right now if they'd have been willing to "lose" some of those bidding wars.

  • Mar 8th, 2017 @ 7:23am

    Re: Re:

    Especially, gutting the corrupt Olympic pig* would be welcome.

    As a long-time sports (pro and college) fan, I'm starting to feel that consuming media "sports entertainment product" is a suboptimal use of my time and to contribute money to the pockets of franchise owners, agents, and the 'governing bodies" of faux-amateur sports empires is stupid and might even be wrong on a moral level.

    Comcast is going to bugger me no matter what, and I think they view "cable basic" as a bit of olive oil. If you know what I mean.

    *-Seriously, I didn't mean to put down pigs.

  • Jan 10th, 2017 @ 10:44am

    Re:

    That's...brilliant! And exactly true.

    I'm not one to get hysterical about what are mostly stylistic affronts emanating from Trump, and consider his election an ill-considered if understandable yuge orange middle finger directed at a self-appointed elite.

    That said, the appointment of Sessions for AG is an absolute worst-case scenario. Sessions' comments about civil asset forfeiture (or, more accurately, "random spontaneous law enforcement tax surcharge collections") are perhaps the most "divorced from reality" on any subject I have ever heard. Not just from politicians, but anywhere. And I've read YouTube comment threads!

    Surely it will be a test of Trumps' own ability to do simple political calculations. Cops only have so much political power. Their victims, and the tens of millions of American citizens who obviously WANT THEIR DAMN DRUGS have many multiples of that power. If Trump reconsiders this appointment, or allows it to fail without doubling down or investing much political capital in pushing it, that will be a welcome sign, of, at least, a degree of pragmatism and rationality.

    IF, otoh, he really thinks Sessions should be AG...well, it will mean some of the hysterically-expressed fears of the Trump administration were justified. The silver lining would be the increased likelihood of a single-term Presidency.

  • Dec 30th, 2016 @ 3:31pm

    Re: Re:

    One would hope that "syphilitic zombie" would be part of the sentence for Hansmeier et al, but I suspect it was just a coincidence in Capones' case.

  • Dec 30th, 2016 @ 1:34pm

    (untitled comment)

    This ^ x1,000. Corruption in a European bureaucracy? Say it ain't so!

    And it also explains why some of us are always, intuitively and without knowing all the specifics, distrustful of "bigger, better, (and always more powerful) government". No matter if the urge to produce such a governing force begins with moral high ground, best intentions and people of good will...it always ends up with people rationalizing a sell-out. When they bother with rationalization at all.

    Given that technology is finally bringing into focus the Holy Grail of totalitarians everywhere: the ability to know what everyone is doing, all the time; people need to understand the starkness of our choices. Total top-down control ("Don't worry citizen. We'll have top men in charge. Top. Men.") or a messy chaotic freedom that will have its' own failures and casualties.

    And while I can't advocate anyone else search for wisdom in the ouvre of a middlebrow movie director, I'll admit to being inspired by, and adopting, Capt. Mal Reynolds' declaration in Firefly: "I aim to misbehave."

    Choose wisely.

  • Dec 30th, 2016 @ 1:21pm

    Re:

    "Wish all who are reading this a better 2017 with less morons in politics and more sanity in the world. Cheers"

    Hope never dies, indeed. :-)

    AND a happy New Year to you and all, also.

  • Dec 30th, 2016 @ 11:17am

    Re:

    " Let's blame somebody else, anybody else as long as I get to hold someone who has a lot of money responsible!"

    FTFY

  • Dec 22nd, 2016 @ 8:29pm

    Re: Re: When messaging causes physical harm

    Hmmm...given that, are the antics we see on college campuses (fainting, hysterical crying, uncontrollable fear and rage) in response to "offensive" speech/writing/opinion, setting up a precedent in which speech can be legally treated *as* violence??

    One hears it frequently, that the pain felt makes the stimulus indistinguishable from physical assault. Indeed, such an argument of equivalence is sometimes also used when claiming that *triggering* speech is at fault when the 'triggered' person commits actual physical violence in response.

    I would hate for such equivalence to become 'precedent-by-decree' through the kind of administrative interpretation various FedGov agencies (and Presidents) more and more resort to. Pretty sure the actual LAW doesn't work that way. A fact for which we should all be grateful.

    That Some Good May Come of This Dept:
    For any government power that might be used to do good, right wrongs, "level the playing field", etc., etc, I'd like people to imagine that power in the hands of Trump or a Trump Administration. Government power should not be increased based on the assumed, or hoped-for, morality and enlightened nature of those wielding it. Nopenopenope.

  • Dec 17th, 2016 @ 11:09pm

    Re: Re:

    Are you suggesting a similar fate be arranged for Mssrs. Hansmeier and Steele? Coz I'm pretty sure that's cruel and unusual.

    Cruel, unusual and tempting.

  • Dec 8th, 2016 @ 9:16pm

    Re: Re: Snopes?

    Yeah, I never thought they were too bad and usually seemed to have a sense of humor about stuff.

    They *did* wrongly debunk the story about the "Emory U Chalk Trump Crisis". Though in that case, the article writer's excuse that it sounded so ridiculous he assumed the story had to be a mean-spirited invention actually kinda rings true. I thought much the same.

  • Dec 8th, 2016 @ 9:03pm

    Re:

    "Honestly I think the best solution is to start teaching critical thinking in schools and start teaching it young."

    Amen to that. And why is this not done??

    I strongly suspect (supported by personal experience) that the folks doing the teaching have found that turning young people into critical thinkers too early doesn't result in the kind of students/people/citizens they want to produce.

    Not a conspiracy, just the way things work out. An observation that has explanatory and predictive power, which usually suggests a strong element of truth.

  • Dec 8th, 2016 @ 7:55pm

    Re: Well, but you know...they ARE idiots.

    Yes, this is true.

    The error that frequently follows after the inarguable conclusion that half the people are of below average intelligence, is that all the ones above that line share your every political position.

More comments from trollificus >>