DC 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (272) comment rss

  • On the post: North Carolina Tells Blogger That Providing Dietary Advice Is Illegal, Blogger Tells NC To Read The 1st Amendment

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 11:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: He was caught **consulting**

    I speak only for myself.

    For me, it is a no brainer that we should certify people who may work on me when I am not fully conscious.

    I also think it is a no brainer to require formal claims for medicines, treatments, and pratitioners to be fully documented. I even support official approval, though I don't support illegality of un-approved treatments with consent of the treated.

    What I don't support is regulation of casual advice. That would be consultation in your parlance. In your quote, I think you have the quote marks reversed. It should be "medical" consultants. They are advisors, based on personal experience and research, no different than my best friend who got GERD before I did and helped me mitigate it. In no way any sane person would claim are these people "pratictioners".

    What I don't support is suppression of my personal freedom.

    Are you wanting to regulate everything that might be unhealthy in some amount? Sugar? Fat? Salt?

    You love that either / or fallacy, don't you?

  • On the post: North Carolina Tells Blogger That Providing Dietary Advice Is Illegal, Blogger Tells NC To Read The 1st Amendment

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 11:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: He was caught **consulting**

    "You lot" meaning USAians ... most of us don't credit homeopathy, and I'm pretty sure we don't have ERs for it.

    Homeopathy was just a cheap trope for Scote to throw out to discredit non-hyper regulated health + everything else care.

  • On the post: North Carolina Tells Blogger That Providing Dietary Advice Is Illegal, Blogger Tells NC To Read The 1st Amendment

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 11:28pm

    Re: Re: He was caught **consulting**

    Yeah ... you really are a shit, aren't you.

    Seems like his advice would generally help control blood sugar. Imagine that.

    What's wrong with "If you disagree with your doctor, get another doctor"? People get hopelessly lost in medical systems that don't ever independently figure out their health issues. All the time.

    Trust your Doctor and shut up? Seriously?

    For most of us ... personal opinion is protected speech. That includes personal advice, even if it is called consulting.

    Why do we have to "catch" anyone doing personal consulting ... "advice"?

    He is not claiming any credentials or certifications.

    So people are providing private advice based on their own experience and research, that should be illegal? So when my girlfriend says I have a headache, and I say take two aspirin, I should be thrown in jail?

    Scote says "go to hell" to the first amendment. It's official.

  • On the post: North Carolina Tells Blogger That Providing Dietary Advice Is Illegal, Blogger Tells NC To Read The 1st Amendment

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 11:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He was caught **consulting**

    Yeah -- He's rocking the either / or fallacy hard.

    Paid / amateur, or something in between?

  • On the post: North Carolina Tells Blogger That Providing Dietary Advice Is Illegal, Blogger Tells NC To Read The 1st Amendment

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 11:04pm

    Re: Re: He was caught **consulting**

    Your Scenario was (Assuming USA) an ambulance (if you have cash -- ooo, scary) takes you to (with not consultation -- ooo, scary) an unregulated homeopathic treatment center for your emergency treatment.

    Either / Or fallacy. You lose badly. Let's examine this reasonably.

    First of all, none of that exists in the US. Ambulances take you to a regulated hospital.

    There is regulation of health care, and the general tone of comments here are not saying there should be none, so please stop playing that card, you don't have that card.

    I think the general point is that I should have choice. If I am unconscious or incoherent, then medical personnel should check quickly check for things like allergy bracelets, and generally apply their expertise.

    If I am conscious, and I have an opinion, then I shouldn't forced to undergo treatment against that opinion.

    If I want to seek out an acupuncturist, a chiropractor, a hairdresser, a homeopath, a witchdoctor, a friend, or a stranger with similar experiences, the government should not stop me.

    I don't claim that my insurance should pay for it.

    I do want the government to protect me from other people (like you) within reason. I don't want the government to protect me from myself.

  • On the post: Don't You Dare Show Olympic Spirit In The UK

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 10:40pm

    Re: and the funniest part is

    missed the sarc mark. If not ... get help soon.

    There have been Olympic fixes, but 75%? Really?

  • On the post: Guy Files Lawsuit To Strip Google Of Its Trademarks

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 10:32pm

    Re:

    If you look at my comments on this article, you will see I am not supporting Google.

    I agree that this guy is domain squatting, which is sleazy.

    1) Being sleazy does not require relinquishing all of your rights. (Should it? well ...)

    2) I could be mis-remembering, but when YAHOO! was the predominant search engine, I don't recall a lot of people saying "YAHOO! that". "Google that"' without regard to a particular branded search engine, if in common use, presents a problem. It is in common use.

    3) I think in most of these generics trademark battles, I don't agree that the culturally prevalent product should lose trademark, but I also believe that the culturally prevalent product should not be allowed to usurp a category with their brand. I am not suggesting this has happened.

    4) There are brands who are trying to usurp words, not just brands. See Monster Cable. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop at the legislative level with penalties for trivial litigation at the least.

    This is a tough one to write laws for that make sense and be consistently applied.

  • On the post: Guy Files Lawsuit To Strip Google Of Its Trademarks

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 10:18pm

    Re: Re: Glossed the most important part of the story

    He may or may not have a working business model. Lots of people sue over what they think will be a working business model, regardless of if it is likely to ... actually ... work.

    I think whether he could actually make money if Google didn't shut him down is pretty much beside the point. The point is whether "Google" is generic, and also, whether the rules for "generic" should be as they are.

    I'm not defending Google. In a post upstream, I have expressed how I am torn on this issue, and the guy seems to have a valid case under current law.

  • On the post: Guy Files Lawsuit To Strip Google Of Its Trademarks

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 10:13pm

    Re: Google

    I agree he seems to have a case. I'm not sure he should have a case in a sane world.

    How is any company supposed to police people's daily conversations?

    Additionally, not only would it be impossible, but it would be a living hell for the general populace if they had to adhere to trademark restrictions in their casual conversations.

    I'm really torn on this, and I'm not sure there is a clean legislative or even judicial solution.

    I don't think Xerox should have to police the general popular cultural use of Xerox to mean copy in order to prevent Cannon from marketing their copier as a "Xerox" machine.

    On the other hand, I also don't think Xerox should be able to market copying as "Xeroxing".

    It's a puzzle.

  • On the post: Guy Files Lawsuit To Strip Google Of Its Trademarks

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 09:59pm

    Re: Re: Almost there

    Don't feed the linux troll.

    Oops, I am.

    You do know that MacOS is a Unix kernel, right? There's scripting and a command line there with everything you need. Oh, and Objective C is lightyears beyond C++.

    So it will fully support someone with a very high level of skill and understanding of computers.

    Not a Mac fanboy. I dislike all fanboisms. Linux Fanboism is no exception.

  • On the post: Senator Leahy Wants To Give At Least $5 Million To State Department To 'Combat Piracy'

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 09:45pm

    Re:

    Ah poor whiny *IAA shill. When SOPA got shit canned, I picture him stomping his feet like my toddler, saying, "I don't like it!" And then he falls on the floor crying.

    God, you're an insufferable whiner.

    FTFY.

  • On the post: Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 09:31pm

    Re:

    I think the critic label is being directed at posters like the AC who seems to be claiming these types of campaigns are sell "sizzle" but no "steak".

  • On the post: Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 09:28pm

    Re:

    I addition to not needing a label and signing away all rights in order to have someone else perform various business functions for you, I would definitely recommend that any musician or band develop their music to "excellent" level _before_ starting a kickstarter campaign.

    If said musician(s) had a lot of friend / family fans, they could do small stuff on kickstarter, but how time consuming would that be?

    Kind of basic AC.

  • On the post: Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 09:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Which direction are you trying to move the goalposts?

  • On the post: Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 09:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry (not really). PaulT has you dead to rights.

    Goal post moving 101.

    1) When you follow a question with "I doubt it.", it is not a rhetorical question. It is a challenge, and your challenge was met. Later claiming it wasn't a challenge, it was merely rhetorical, and forgetting the "I doubt it" challenge part? 10 yard penalty.

    2) The whole point of the article was that no matter how good your steak is, if you don't sell the sizzle to some extent, you probably won't have a good business. If you simply want to make great steak, and abhor the idea of selling the sizzle, then by all means cook great steaks for your friends and family. However, most people who love doing something would go a step or two out of their comfort zone if they could make a living at it. 10 yard penalty.

    2.5) The title of the article was a rhetorical question (unlike yours ... no challenge issued).

    "Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?"

    The answer was "No". You missed the point of the article on purpose, and I am ejecting your quarterback for spitting on the ref.

    3) Can you clarify the bit about how these cases are not delivering any steak? Is your definition of steak a song that dominates the mass market to the extent that I can't avoid it no matter how hard I try? That would be an odd definition of steak. For fans of Radiohead's cut of steak, I'm pretty sure most of them can meet your challenge to name a song off that offering. 10 yard penalty.

    4) I will reinforce Pault's experience. Given the artist, I probably could not name off the top of my head any song by any artist that has been mass marketed to me in the last 15 years. I don't have data, but it would surprise me if we were in the minority. 15 yard penalty for complete bogosity.

    AC? 5 yard penalty.

    I'll just repeat, that, structurally, your "rhetorical" question was not rhetorical, it was a challenge. Your bad.

  • On the post: Resetting The Balance To Save Copyright (Part III)

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 08:47pm

    Re: Re:

    Distract and deflect.

    AC says 1 or 2.

    You actually expand that to 1,2 ... 50.

    Then you reject citations because they don't strictly fit 1 or 2.

    I really hope most people who read your comments can see how transparent your bafflegab is.

  • On the post: Resetting The Balance To Save Copyright (Part III)

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 08:38pm

    Re: Re:

    "Well, all you have to do is convince the courts these tort doctrines that reach back to the common law of England are simply inapt."

    Seems like sites subject to takes downs generally don't get their day in court.

    DMCA Safe Harbors? The DMCA massively increased liability, and the safe harbors are the only mitigating measure. You are pretending that every new legislation is improving things for everyone, or even limiting the content industries in some way, which is a ridiculous argument on its face.

    As an aside, I'm pretty sure this is AJ. I'm not sure why he would pick a handle that indicates he is arguing on his own behalf, when the arguments are entirely on the behalf of the content industries.

    It's a puzzle.

  • On the post: Resetting The Balance To Save Copyright (Part III)

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 08:28pm

    Re: Re:

    So you base your interpretation of what he wrote on things he didn't write? Clever.

  • On the post: Resetting The Balance To Save Copyright (Part III)

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 08:27pm

    Re:

    Pro Se is not passive aggressive, per se, he is merely a sophist primarily trying to distract and deflect.

  • On the post: Resetting The Balance To Save Copyright (Part III)

    DC ( profile ), 29 May, 2012 @ 08:21pm

    Re:

    Are you suggesting that the content industries (as opposed to artists, who don't generally lobby) were not the driving force behind pretty much every copyright extension ever, including the Statute of Anne?

Next >>