JMT’s Techdirt Profile

jmt

About JMT




JMT’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 21st, 2017 @ 3:14pm

    Re: Such low standards of journalism!

    "Because it's pretty trivial to think of cases where fraud charges are justified when copyright infringements is not."

    Actually it's safe to say that most fraud cases have nothing to do with copyright. But in this case the USG's claim of fraud is entirely predicated on MegaUpload committing copyright infringement. Feel free to explain why you think fraud took place in this case if copyright infringement didn't.

  • Feb 18th, 2017 @ 5:31pm

    Re: Re: Survival Fund

    Those comments, that's some of the lamest sockpuppetry I've ever read. I thought he said he was really clever? A smart person wouldn't resort to such pathetic attempts to gain support. Or perhaps he has such a low opinion of everyone else's intellect he thought they'd be believable.

  • Feb 18th, 2017 @ 4:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But he's not in construction, he's a developer and a marketer. He doesn't need to know anything about construction (and likely doesn't know much), he just has to pay the right people who do know. If you start with a lot of inherited money, hard things become much easier because you can afford to mess up and do it again. His string of failures and bankruptcies is evidence of that.

    An even if he did have non-moronic qualities in his 'profession', at pretty much everything else he has clearly demonstrated moron-levels of ignorance, incompetence and all round general uselessness. And apparently a whole lot of people thought that qualified him for president...

  • Feb 18th, 2017 @ 1:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Those are not mutually exclusive, he's absolutely both.

  • Feb 15th, 2017 @ 4:05pm

    Re: Misguided

    "First, you are misguided because it's a temporary ban..."

    If you think the intention was for this to actually be temporary, you were probably also gullible enough to believe all of Trump's other promises and vote for him. The next four years are going to be disappointing for you...

    "...and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don't."

    More proof of your gullibility. The current vetting process has been shown to be very thorough and very effective. What exactly do you think needs to be improved? Where's your evidence of significant failure? You have no idea, you're just parroting Trump talking points.

    "...trying to say that the country doesn't have the right to do that to protect their citizens is... misguided."

    Trying to suggest that the EO would have actually increased protection to US citizens is also misguided. And stupid.

  • Feb 15th, 2017 @ 4:04pm

    Re: Misguided

    *"First, you are misguided because it's a temporary ban..."*

    If you think the intention was for this to actually be temporary, you were probably also gullible enough to believe all of Trump's other promises and vote for him. The next four years are going to be disappointing for you...

    *"...and it was to improve the vetting process so we can differentiate the people who DO want to do us harm from those who don't."*

    More proof of your gullibility. The current vetting process has been shown to be very thorough and very effective. What exactly do you think needs to be improved? Where's your evidence of significant failure? You have no idea, you're just parroting Trump talking points.

    *"...trying to say that the country doesn't have the right to do that to protect their citizens is... misguided."*

    Trying to suggest that the EO would have actually increased protection to US citizens is also misguided. And stupid.

  • Feb 10th, 2017 @ 2:54pm

    Re:

    "Does Techdirt understand that I don't want to see article after article hysterically screaming about Trump?"

    Do you understand that you don't actually have to read anything here? Do you realise how stupid it sounds to criticize a website for making you see words you don't like?

  • Feb 10th, 2017 @ 2:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "...I'm pretty sure all the elections were won that way... what is your point, exactly?"

    How about the fact that he got less votes but still won. You don't think that highlights a massive fundamental flaw in the system? A failure rate of nearly 9% should be considered atrocious for a supposedly democratic voting system.

    "The person you really wanted to win didn't, and now after 200+ years you want to retroactively change the rules?"

    Why would you assume this is a recent change of heart and that something needs to happen retroactively. Neither were implied or suggested.

    Nothing can change the result, but that doesn't mean people should continue to highlight how it actually happened. It's also exactly the right time to point out the Electoral College system is grossly outdated and should be harshly critisized for once again producing a result that goes against the will of the majority. Worse, this time it installed a narcissistic, egotistical, ignorant, incompetent, autocratic wannabe-dictator.

  • Feb 9th, 2017 @ 4:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: 10 steps to Fascism..

    *"NO-ONE absolutely no-one is going to turn this country around in 30 days, hell 360 days."*

    And nobody except Trump apologists is claiming that's what was expected. While the speed of his awfulness is surprising, it's *what* he's doing that is upsetting so many people, not *when* he's doing it. He's setting in motion changes that will likely have calamitous long-term effects if not challenged. Why the hell should people wait for the damage to become obvious and undeniable before acting?

    *"But doing the same old thing and relying on the same only shit (both sides of the political isle) isn't working. At least this is different."*

    A few times I've tried to fix something wrong with my car, but it didn't work. So I looked for a *better* solution. I did not set my car on fire and then say "Well that's different." It's stupid and simplistic to think that because something is different it must be better. If you wanted a better president than Clinton then you should've voted her in and had another go in four years.

    *"Whether its good or bad is yet to be determined, I'm just not going to be so quick jump on the "we're fucked" bandwagon yet, at least not until we actually are."*

    Then I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you might not be very smart, or at least very ignorant of history. Trump is not some amazing innovator, all the terrible things he's doing have been done by someone at some time around the world (some still are) and so it's not hard to use rational thought to predict likely outcomes. It's not rocket science.

  • Feb 8th, 2017 @ 9:42pm

    Re: Re: This is why...

    Ugh, I really hate this Markdown formatting system. At least make it default instead of having to manually select it every time!

  • Feb 8th, 2017 @ 9:39pm

    Re: This is why...

    *"A quote that is VERY unfriendly with the pro regulation zealots that infest this place!"*

    You either have a very selective memory or your implied claim of being a regular reader is somewhat exaggerated... Whenever abuse of copyright is discussed, Techdirt writers and regular commenters are inevitably labeled 'pirates' with no respect for the law. Whenever the disruptive nature of Uber is discussed, we again are a bunch of scofflaws for believing taxis regs should not apply to ride sharing. That does not square with your claim. There are hundreds of stories here criticizing the harm caused by both excessive regulation in some areas and insufficient protection by the law in others. The fact that you refer to (paraphrasing) an 'infestation of pro-regulation zealots' is far more suggestive of zealotry on your part. Most people here are far more broad-minded on the topic of regulation than you clearly are.

  • Feb 7th, 2017 @ 4:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "My city is fighting against cooperating on the deportation of criminal illegal aliens. Not just illegals who came across the border illegally, but who committed other crimes once they got here-- gang crime, robbery, rape, even murder."

    Not even sure how you can make such a dumb claim without realizing how dumb it is. Nobody is fighting against deporting people who have committed robbery, rape, murder or other serious crimes. I can't believe that has to be explained.

  • Feb 6th, 2017 @ 2:31pm

    Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt

    "Trump is legally entitled to limit immigration entry..."

    You put the word 'legally' in the wrong place. What you mean to say is 'Trump is entitled to limit immigration entry legally'. As multiple courts have clearly stated, he has not done that.

  • Jan 30th, 2017 @ 8:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

    "Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in."

    From what you've written you don't sound at all like someone who spends enough time hanging out at Social Security offices to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy. So either you've missed sharing some vital info with us that would make your claim a lot more believable, or you're making shit up to strengthen your utterly amoral argument. Feel free to clarify.

  • Jan 30th, 2017 @ 3:22pm

    Good intent, bad execution

    Personally I think the taxi strike was a terrible idea. Showing support for a worthy cause is admirable, but inconveniencing hundreds (thousands?) of travelers while having zero impact on the people you're protesting is counter-productive, especially when another company cops undeserved backlash.

  • Jan 30th, 2017 @ 3:18pm

    Re:

    Great dictionary example of 'alternative facts' right there.

  • Jan 30th, 2017 @ 3:17pm

    Re:

    *"Surge-pricing is an illegal practice..."*

    That's news to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to cite the relevant laws and supporting caselaw. I mean they've been doing this for years so there must have been some law suits by now right?

  • Jan 28th, 2017 @ 1:48pm

    Re: Re:

    "Fake news is really just referring to the journalists who try to burden their readers with their own personal views/feelings/agendas."

    How the hell is it that in the space of about a year a huge number of people like you lost their shit and changed the meaning of the word 'fake'? Go read a damn dictionary.

  • Jan 27th, 2017 @ 11:11am

    Re:

    "Call me in a month when everyone's had time to settle in."

    Yeah, it's not like they had months to take care if all this sort of shit beforehand! Oh wait...

  • Jan 26th, 2017 @ 6:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you think he's lying about the personal experience he's describing then grow a pair and say so.

More comments from JMT >>