Not an Electronic Rodent’s Techdirt Profile

hammy

About Not an Electronic Rodent




Not an Electronic Rodent’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 3rd, 2015 @ 4:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The idea that the winner of an election has any sort of mandate from the voters is ridiculous from the outset.
    Be fair; the winner usually has a mandate from the "voters" that contributed hundreds of thousands of pounds to his election campaign - the handful of them that are actually British citizens and eligible to vote that is.

  • Jul 2nd, 2015 @ 10:06am

    Re:

    When the majority has no issue with an elected official to allow them to carry on with their antics, there's no reason to be concerned
    When the guy was elected by about 20% of the population and less than 35% of those who bothered to vote, it's hardly a sweeping mandate, is it? And if you disagree with the moron, what's your alternative your election choices are between a gaggle of largely corrupt monkeys?

  • Jun 26th, 2015 @ 3:33pm

    Predictable

    Freedom of Information
    "Always dispose of the awkward bit in the title; it does less harm there than in the text"
    - Sir Humphrey Appleby

  • Jun 20th, 2015 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Re: What so ridiculous here

    Dude, his freaking dad had no choice but to hand over rights for those videos/images while working for CBS and Paramount because the law was written by corporations like that to make sure a simple actor has no rights.
    There, FTFY....

  • Jun 17th, 2015 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Priorities

    the cost/benefit is done by gut feeling.By observation, it's done by hand-waving, random "moral" panic and at best cronyism, rather than anything more based in reality like "gut feeling"... or Ouija boards.

  • Jun 16th, 2015 @ 6:06am

    Re: Two possibilities

    Or...

    3) It really is operationally sensitive because they'd been tracking his porn habits for months and that's how they found him since every copy of "Naughty Jihadists 5" and that month's edition of "Mature Martyrs" have secret CIA GPS chips embedded....

    4) The list of porn is all identifiable as coming from the private stash of the CIA used as part of honey trap operations and would show that OBL was really a prisoner before he was caught....

    5) Oh, I've run out of conspiracy theories... guess I'll just have to go with the prevailing "They lied" theory :-)

  • Jun 11th, 2015 @ 9:03am

    Life imitating art

    It's kinda worrying when an over-the-top comedy sketch from the 1970s starts looking like behaviour that might be a step in the right direction!
    Constable Savage
    At least this guy's boss calls him on it!

  • Jun 9th, 2015 @ 5:09pm

    Re: "File sharing" is not a gateway! -- SEZ anyone with 1/2 a brain

    To set morality aside is step toward criminality.
    Except you already blew that argument yourself by not talking about morality:
    Is crystal meth a "gateway" to criminal behavior like robbery / theft?
    Taking Crystal meth is not immoral. Stupid, maybe. Illegal, certainly - but arbitrarily illegal. Other recreational drugs are available legally and are often socially accepted, many drugs now illegal were also socially accepted previously (Heroin for example, Opium, E). Clearly drug-taking is not a matter of morality.

    Also, much of the problem caused by illegal drug use stems from their very illegality and the crime that surrounds anything declared illegal that people still demand. Look how well prohibition worked out.

    Just because you don't like something doesn't make it immoral - even if it's illegal - and making things that are generally normal human behaviour illegal for the same reason usually ends up creating a bigger problem than you started with.

  • Jun 9th, 2015 @ 9:03am

    Wow!

    That's a truly remarkable graph if you consider the number of amazingly petty and stupid things that have become "offences" since the '90s. The "real" crime rate must have plumeted.

    And there, perhaps, lies (if anywhere) a tiny, tiny grain of validity in the "gateway to bigger crimes" argument - If you're going to make blatantly normal human behaviour criminal, it can hardly come as a surprise if those growing up in that environment start finding a certain contempt for laws in general whether they actually break them or not.

  • Jun 9th, 2015 @ 2:04am

    Who's Fail?

    and that this gives him confidence Netflix will thrive when it launches later this year in Spain -- a country that has traditionally had a high level of piracy
    If Netflix fails, it will be little to do with piracy and lots to do with the content lobotomy forced upon it by the studios. Even though I rarely bother to watch the trash Hollywood puts out these days, I'd pay for a service like Netflix if I could watch what I want, whenever, wherever... but I can't so I don't.

    It seems pretty likely from the user end, that the studios hate the idea of services like Netflix and are trying to kill them, whether they find piracy useful or not. Of course, the old saying might apply; "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity"

  • Jun 6th, 2015 @ 3:18am

    Yep

    Either way, I'm sure plenty of lawyers will be able to bill tons of hours as this creates a huge legal mess
    Isn't that the primary purpose of copyright law?

  • Jun 6th, 2015 @ 2:58am

    Is there a better question?

    Why is it that grandstanding American politicians always want to blame the platforms for people doing bad stuff on those platforms, even when those platforms appear to provide all sorts of useful information that apparently help law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the military do their jobs?
    A fine question, to which the answer is "because morons". Whether it's actually true or not is another good question - probably not since surely they're not quite dumb enough to reveal an effective method of intel gathering? If it is true, though, it strikes me a better question might be:
    If public social media can produce more actionable intel than, for example, hoovering up every email, phonecall and internet log in the world seems to... Why are you invading everyone's privacy again, Uncle Sam?

  • May 14th, 2015 @ 10:50am

    Recognition of government

    So it's official? The US is a plutocracy? It must be if a law so blatantly aimed at preserving the wealth of a very few of Wyoming's 1/2 a million citizens at the expense of the health of the rest can even be contemplated seriously, much less enacted.

  • May 13th, 2015 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Policing by Consent

    It's a subtle distinction
    So subtle it's undetectable...

  • May 13th, 2015 @ 12:22pm

    If only

    And I didn't think any political party could make UKIP seem sane and rational by comparison...

    Ooops, I think I hear the police at the door for dissing the government!

  • Apr 29th, 2015 @ 1:13pm

    Clearly willan been a valid case

    Defendants’ anticipated infringement will cause Plaintiffs severe and irreparable harm

    They could have got away with it if they'd known about Dr. Dan Streetmentioner...
    "Defendents wioll haven be infringing....."

  • Apr 29th, 2015 @ 8:02am

    Re:

    Y'know... if they'd meant it, the Greens might have actually got my protest vote.

  • Apr 18th, 2015 @ 10:12am

    Re: 1201 time?

    Further, it would be clear that this change would make "ripper" tools entirely legal (ie, they would not be against 1201 because there would be "non-infringing uses"). Yet clearly, people would use these tools to rip stuff and put it on torrents or otherwise "infringe".
    One assumes you're in favour of repealing the 2nd amendment then?

    The same argument applied even more so to firearms, which people use to kill and indeed are designed primarily for the purpose, or knives... or... well computers in general or really, pretty much anything at a stretch.

  • Apr 13th, 2015 @ 4:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Silly article

    It's impossible to know who the next person will be that commits an evil act. So as opportunities come up to possibly stop some future act, I support eliminating the threat.
    OK, let's pretend for a moment that this argument makes sense....

    Where's the bar set?
    This guy apparently committed no criminal act (since there was in fact no actual bomb involved at any point in the "conspiracy") and it appears that he's pretty much all talk and seems too stupid to actually plan anything on his own.

    So, that means it's OK to arrest people who:
    1/ Are easily led and might be convinced by someone malicious to commit a violent crime if they happen to meet the wrong person.
    2/ Are unthinking and at least borderline sociopathic enough to maybe commit some random act of violence if the right set of circumstances of anger/means/trigger/target happen to come their way at the wrong time.

    So that leaves me two questions;
    Where are you going to put all the people that fall under that definition?
    How are you going to find enough people who don't to look after them?

  • Apr 13th, 2015 @ 4:16am

    Re: Re:

    To me, this is like setting a building on fire and handing some poor person the matches and running off.
    No, it's not....
    it's like making one of those fake fires with a fan, some silk and a light, handing some poor person a huge, plastic Swan Vesta match that wouldn't burn if you tried... and then having him arrested for killing hundreds of people by burning down a building that doesn't in fact exist.

More comments from Not an Electronic Rodent >>