ottermaton’s Techdirt Profile


About ottermaton

ottermaton’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 1st, 2015 @ 4:39am

    quoting the Constitution out of context doesn't help your credibility

    Funny, just recently as I was reading the article "New Zealand Prime Minister Admits Drug Prices Will Rise Under TPP -- Leaves Out The Part About More People Dying" I was thinking (and nearly commented ... should have) "Where are the shills bemoaning 'the clear simple morality that creators own their creations and have sole control of copies' even though that (twisted) form of "morality" will lead to people's deaths?"

    So, I guess now is as good as a time as any: Where were you on that issue? Afraid of showing your hypocrisy much?

    Not to mention you intentionally dropped the "by" from the phrase "securing for limited Times ..." in a feeble attempt to paint that action as the goal rather than the method. It's obvious, when viewing the entire phrase that securing the monopoly is simply the technique, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ..." which is to benefit ... I don't know, let's see ... the public! This feeble attempt at distortion is intellectually dishonest and destroys your credibility (as if you had any in the first place! ha!)

    And in response to this gem ...

    It's you and Mike who haven't read it. Nothing explicit about the public.

    ... I think this quote from Neal Stephenson says it best:

    “The difference between stupid and intelligent people – and this is true whether or not they are well-educated – is that intelligent people can handle subtlety.”

    It's pretty clear on which side of that line you fall.

  • Jul 30th, 2015 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re: Dear Authors...

    what about educational materials like textbooks and such?

    And therein lies a HUGE problem. Students are a captive market who are required to purchase these books, often (usually?) at hundreds of dollars each. Then every year they're "updated" with no meaningful change in content just so the used book market is destroyed, eliminating that option for a student as well.

    For myself, I flat out refused in to purchase textbooks in my last several semesters, choosing to pirate them (when available, going without when not) instead and feeling absolutely zero guilt about it. I even encouraged other students to do the same.

  • Jul 27th, 2015 @ 12:19pm

    Re: You're just wrong, Masnick

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but closing sentence stands out as being very much wrong.

    Masnich just hates it when lawyers enforce law enforcement.

    First, how is anyone supposed to enforce law enforcement? Maybe you meant to just say "enforce [the] law." But the bigger problem is that lawyers are in no way obliged or expected to enforce laws. That's the job of the police, aka Law Enforcement Officers.

    Where did you get such a silly idea?

  • Jul 22nd, 2015 @ 1:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The property is presumed to be not forfeitable, and the government has the burden of proving that it is before it is ultimately forfeited.

    That is SO stupid it is almost funny. Haven't you been paying attention to the numerous cases where property has been seized with absolutely ZERO proof being given, much less an accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the owner of said property?

    Go ahead, ask me to cite cases of this happening. I dare you. I double dare you.

    You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You think the legalese you throw around makes you look smart/well-informed, but your intellectual dishonesty stills shines through bright and clear.

  • Jul 22nd, 2015 @ 10:57am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Due process means a hearing and a right to be heard, and in many instances, such opportunities are there.

    And in *this* case there is NO such opportunity. The Constitution clearly states that everyone is always entitled to due process in every case. Your weasel words of "in many instances" betray the truth of the situation.

    That you refuse to acknowledge that these actions are clearly unconstitutional shows how intellectually dishonest you really are. You hide behind a court ruling and use its rhetoric to deny the reality that the DOJ is acting unconstitutionally.

  • Jul 22nd, 2015 @ 9:21am


    that's just legal... sorry

    asset forfeiture proceedings are legal

    So was slavery. And prohibition.

    That these laws are entirely unjust and immoral seems to be no problem for you. Here's an idea: let those of us with a working moral compass decide these issues.

    kim dotcom can send his lawyers to fight in in court

    No. He can't. Do you even bother to read?

    Using the “fugitive disentitlement” doctrine, the government is blocking the defendants from challenging the forfeiture.

  • Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:06pm

    Re: Go back into your hole antidirt

    It's been a nice ~2 weeks around here without your idiotic bleating. And the ~6 weeks prior to that lone post. You should go back to being silent.

    Look at the upside: if you're silent at least you're not advertising what a spectacular shithead you are.

  • Jul 20th, 2015 @ 2:38pm

    Re: Damned GOP

    Thank you for adding exactly zero (except your own paranoid sense of persecution) to the discussion.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 11:05pm


    You can always implement something that will fool, block the old print screen

    For example? I'm serious. I'd really like to know.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 11:03pm

    Re: Re:

    Donald Trump ... should only appear in public in dazzle camouflage makeup.

    I thought that hair already was dazzle.

  • Jul 11th, 2015 @ 12:16am

    ever wonder why the subjects are so long?

    Seriously. Did you ever wonder why this troll's comments have a really long subject/title? Here's a pretty good possibility:

    He knows his ramblings are gonna get flagged. I mean, they never make any sense, so why wouldn't they? But (and I gotta give him credit here) he knows enough to put whichever dead horse he wants to beat that day in the subject. That way he knows that despite being flagged he's gonna get "his message" out because people can't help themselves and reply to him and keep his title intact.

    It's really kind of sad.

  • Jul 10th, 2015 @ 11:45pm

    A case of ... uhh .... errm ... clearly it is ... hmmm ...

    I've never read an article on TD that's made my head hurt so much. The worst, though, was this:

    Reading the transcript of Houston and his "paramour" where he's making the threats, this is what I saw:

    HOUSTON: blah blah kill blah

    HOUSTON: blah kill blah blah

    HOUSTON: kill blah blah blah

    HONEYCUTT: ...

    On first glance, I saw the first part of her name as HONEY- but the last part sure wasn't CUTT.

    Roll on Dolemite

  • Jul 9th, 2015 @ 12:22pm


    You know who else "screws" artists? Pirates.

    Those pirates who spend more on "content" than the average consumer in study after study after study after study? Those pirates?

    Boy, I wish I could get "screwed" like that.

    Yet you won't read about that on Techdirt.

    As a matter of fact, I have. But not in the way you mean.

  • Jul 9th, 2015 @ 10:00am

    Re: Note to self

    Self: Read the whole article before going off on a screed which is exactly (and better) covered later in the article.


  • Jul 9th, 2015 @ 9:51am

    Re: While techincally correct.

    I saw plenty of evidence that the were at least under the impression they were acting for ISIS.

    Which is it? Evidence? Or under the impression? The two are mutually exclusive.

  • Jul 9th, 2015 @ 9:37am

    total bullshit

    McCain: So, we're now -- and I've heard my colleagues, with all due respect talking about attacks on privacy and our Constitutional rights etcetera -- but it seems to me that our first obligation is the protection of our citizenry against attack.
    No, Sen McCain, you've got that wrong. "Protection of our citizenry against attack" is not your first obligation. In fact, is not an obligation at all.

    Perhaps, Mr. McCain, you should study the Oath of Office you swore to:
    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. source

    Perhaps you should spend more time defending the Constitution as you swore to do rather that weakening it. Some people might even consider that treason.

  • Jul 5th, 2015 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Ha

    And yet the judges split virtually 50/50 on the vote

    So ...? There's a reason there's always an odd number of Justices: so there can never be a tie. Saying that there was "almost a tie" is utterly meaningless. *Many* Supreme Court decisions are 5-4.

    they were both very liberal

    So they're not allowed to have an opinion? Or just an opinion that doesn't agree with yours?

    Besides, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has no right to make the law

    Well, thank goodness they didn't then! What they did do, however, is making a ruling that making laws discriminating against gay marriage is unconstitutional. There's a BIG difference.

    [Congress] can still nullify this decision if they choose to.

    Yes, I suppose they could, but that would be a hugely uphill battle, considering only troglodytes consider this an issue worth arguing about.

    Just 10 years ago it was common to hear nitwits saying things like, "[Y]ou would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can." (Bill O'Reilly, one of my favorites). We've come a long way in such a short time. Even O'Reilly himself is now saying things like, "All right, the gay marriage thing, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other."

    If that troglodyte can evolve can't you?

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 5:09am


    What boggles my mind is that some gov't agencies require you to submit documents in particular proprietary formats, such as .doc[x] for MS Word. How is it that a gov't agency is allowed to support -- by forcing you to buy the product of -- a private company? It makes no sense to me.

    I just wish M$ shoots its feet hard with the next Windows iterations so Linux can gain even more ground.

    I've often felt the same way, but from early indications it doesn't sound to me like they are. It sounds like they're actually trying to improve their products in a way that make them more useful to customers. (I know ... shocking!) Two examples that spring to mind: 1) recent versions of Windows Server don't require a GUI. 2) I've heard that Win10 is going to come with Virtual Desktops by default.

    Both of those concepts that have been default (or at least common) in the *nix world for decades. If MS is finally getting its head out of its ass and at least trying to do things the right way, that's a win, imo.

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 4:50am


    Way to go everyone! The article's comments have been completely (with one exception) taken over by the troll ... with, of course, your complicity. Way to go!

    Does he have any response to your nuanced arguments? Any counterpoints? Does he ever? Answer: no. His entire purpose is to disrupt and derail any reasonable conversation/debate, and you guys not just let him, but enthusiastically help him.

    That's just great! For your efforts, have a Report click!

  • Jun 30th, 2015 @ 4:43pm

    Yippee!! Another article's comments almost entirely hijacked by a troll!

    Way to go to all of you halfwits that waste your time replying to the troll. You're AWESOME!

More comments from ottermaton >>