ottermaton’s Techdirt Profile

ottermaton

About ottermaton




ottermaton’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 19th, 2015 @ 8:23am

    Re:

    ... let the Invisible Hand of the Free Market magically come to the rescue.

    Read this somewhere once:

    The invisible hand of the free market is what punches workers in the nuts.

  • Feb 18th, 2015 @ 5:09pm

    tl/dr of what antidirt just said

    Here's what he should have posted:


    1) I don't have any sources to back up the BS I just spewed.

    2) Normally I try to cite court cases to make my point, but I don't like this troublesome Jacobsen v. Katzer (especially because it's (one of) the only one(s) dealing with Open Source licensing and it disagrees with me), so everyone has to ignore it.


    Would have saved everyone a lot of time.

  • Feb 18th, 2015 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Anti-dirt backs up what he says every time.

    That statement is demonstrably false in this very thread! ffs

  • Feb 16th, 2015 @ 9:19am

    Re:

    "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

    Actually, I would say that waterboarding does meet that definition from everything I've heard/read about it:

    "... equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as

    • organ failure
    • (lungs are an organ)
    • impairment of bodily function
    • (breathing is a rather important bodily function)
    • death
    • (by all accounts people being waterboarded believe they are dying)


    It seems to me waterboarding meets that definition on every point

  • Feb 13th, 2015 @ 7:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Is this necessary?

    Tough. This is not the Make a Wish Foundation

    I don't know how else to put this: you, sir, are a fucking jackass.

  • Jan 28th, 2015 @ 9:35am

    Re: Re:

    Whoops!

    the middle class will just be completely destroyed by inflation caused by lower class having an influx of disposable income.


    A higher minimum wage will lead to a significant boost in incomes for the worst off in the bottom 30th percent of income, while having no impact on the median household.

    Source

    Boy, that kind of blows that line of BS all to hell, doesn't it?

  • Jan 28th, 2015 @ 9:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    When the high school drop out flipping burgers is suddenly making $15 an hour do you still expect to see the dollar menu? If so your[sic] delusional.

    Since I never said that, I don't know what your point is supposed to be. That's a really poor attempt at a straw man

    ... and end result is that the poor are still poor.

    Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Washington Post article, "Economists agree: Raising the minimum wage reduces poverty" or the many, many studies that reach similar conclusions.

    Just so you know, I'm not some rich guy sitting happy and just spouting this out.

    It sure sounds like you've swallowed their lies hook, line, and sinker, though.

  • Jan 28th, 2015 @ 6:44am

    Re: Re:

    Maybe you're the one who needs to take an economics course.

    Wait. Not maybe. Definitely.

    Money moving around is pretty much the definition of an economy. Poor people just don't have money to move around. And when rich people gobble it all up it doesn't move around either; it just sits there. The " lower class having an influx of disposable income" will serve to improve the economy. Mark my words.

  • Jan 15th, 2015 @ 9:20am

    A rather astounding story out of Florida?

    First line reads:
    "... a rather astounding story out of Florida."
    Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? Personally, I haven't been astounded by anything that happens in Florida in years, ever since that time I was attacked and mugged by a guy armed with a tricycle. No, I'm not making that up.

  • Jan 12th, 2015 @ 9:53am

    Re: It's not going to last

    revenue is down...and THAT can't be tolerated.

    That is exactly, 100% correct.

    Our judicial system has very little to do with justice; it's mostly about bringing in enough revenue to support (and expand!) itself.

  • Jan 9th, 2015 @ 11:18pm

    Re: Re: Wow

    The Sony Pictures Entertainment is based in Culver City, California.

    So what? Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. (SPE) is the American entertainment subsidiary of Japanese multinational technology and media conglomerate Sony.

    Garshk, I hope I'm not being racist! /sarcasm

  • Jan 9th, 2015 @ 5:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Wow

    ... rounded up based on their Japanese ancestry. It was racist. It was also wrong ... But I had at least hoped that those racist attitudes were no longer considered acceptable.

    WTF are you on about? Even among those who still cling to the idea of different human races (scientific consensus is that racial groups cannot be biologically defined.) they still don't imagine "Japanese" as a race.

    Aside from that, how the hell is factually pointing out that Sony is a private company not from the US but from Japan racist or insensitive or anything but just a simple fact?

  • Dec 11th, 2014 @ 9:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error

    Really, grammar Nazi time?

    You started it. On yourself of all things!!! Then tried to blame your keyboard. Now that is fucking pathetic. hahahaha.

    your child like attempts at making yourself look superior.

    I don't have to try to make myself look superior. I just am.

    (By the way, "childlike" is one word. That darn keyboard again? hahahahaha)

    You say the stupidest shit. No wonder everyone around here thinks you're an asshole. No wonder you don't make an actual account (don't want the stupid shit you say coming back on you, do you?)

  • Dec 11th, 2014 @ 9:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error

    You know, everything you just said can be summed up as "If we give up our freedom to have guns, we'll have given up our gun freedom!"

    That's a tautology. I won't even bother to give you a link. Do your own homework.

    Come back after you learn how a tautology is a logical fallacy.

    What other freedoms have they given up in AUS and UK, as you suggested? If you do any research you'll find the answer is none. Yet, they still have lower crime and homicide rates even though they can't protect themselves with guns. Amazing! hahaha

  • Dec 11th, 2014 @ 8:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error

    Your just spewing out one sided research that has a clear agenda.

    1) Don't you mean "you're"? Gonna blame that on the keyboard again? hahaha

    2) At least it's research, which is a helluva lot more than you can say.

    You might be getting your ass handed to you by a girl.

    But I'm not getting my ass handed to me. YOU are but you're too stupid to realize it. The best you've got is "it's one-sided" or "let me pull this one sentence out of one body of research that sorta kinda contradicts the points being made."

  • Dec 11th, 2014 @ 8:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error

    Australia, the U.K., and others that have made it extremely difficult to own guns, have significantly lower gun deaths, but they also don't have the freedoms we have.

    Where do you get these silly ideas? They're certainly not supported by facts.

    Go here and note where the US ranks against UK and Australia for freedom. That's with all values set to .50 except Gun Control which I set to 0 (since you're trying to say that we have more freedoms because of a lack of gun control it seems prudent to remove that from the equation). Hell, even if it Gun Control is weighted the same as the rest, AUS still comes out on top.

    In this here Freedom in the World Index, all three come out exactly tied.

    And in this Economic Freedom Index, both UK and AUS come out more free than the US.

    This Index of Freedom of the World puts AUS ahead and the UK somewhat behind.

    There never has been a question that if you take away the guns, you will have less gun violence It's a simple math problem. But in doing so, we give up our freedoms.

    Sorry, that's just false and not supported by facts, just like all of the other shit you've been spewing.

    It must be so frustrating for you to have everything you say destroyed by factual, researched, proven evidence. Sucks to be you. No wonder you have such a shitty reputation around here.

  • Dec 11th, 2014 @ 7:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error

    Here's some more for you to chew on (and drive your cognitive dissonance through the roof)

    Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.

    Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society. Source


    Odds are that you're one of those who like to use your gun to bully people. No doubt you have a small dick, too. hahaha

  • Dec 11th, 2014 @ 6:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error

    Let's see yourself try to tie yourself in knots over this one:

    In the UK the intentional homicide rate is 1.0
    In the US the intentional homicide rate is 4.7
    Source

    In the UK the crime rate is 41.00
    In the US the crime rate is 50.16
    Source

    How is it that a country with guns has a significantly higher intentional homicide rate and crime rate than a country without guns when, according to your (utterly flawed) analysis, guns make you 10 or 16 (or whatever bullshit number you decide to use depending on your mood) "more likely to use a gun to defend yourself than to be murdered by one"?

    They do not have guns, yet get murdered nearly less frequently.

    Those are hard numbers, not just suppositions like you're trying to use in your feeble attempt to make it look like a gun makes you more safe. They don't.

    Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

    Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
    Source


    Over and over and over and over, studies point to the same fucking thing but you're too dense to get it.

  • Dec 11th, 2014 @ 5:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error

    You know what? I'm done with this. Nobody that would be able to gain any knowledge is going to be reading this thread anymore, and you're just plain too dense to accept rational facts, reason, and logic.

    I'm sure I'll run into in another thread somewhere and crush you once again. Until then, have a nice life.

  • Dec 11th, 2014 @ 5:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error

    I read no less than 3 additional studies last night that picked that study apart.

    Hmm, why don't you have links to those? Oh, I know. Because you're full of shit.

    Even if you do manage to find a study or two that finds flaws in that one that I referenced, what about all other the other studies that find the exact same thing!

    11 thousand murders, 162 thousand successfully defended. My point was that although it raises the "risk" of homicide times 2, it raises your ability to defend yourself by 16 times.

    How do you square against this:

    Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.


    How is it possible that in an actual scientific study they conclude that a gun doesn't prevent you from being victimized in a crime, yet according your hoo-ha a gun owner is 16 times better at protecting themselves? Something doesn't jive there. And it's pretty obvious, if you have any understanding of stats, what it is. The study you're relying on is self-reporting from people who have every reason to embellish or straight-out lie to a)the police; b)their own conscience; c)their friends/family; d)the media; e)the "perp's" family/friends; f)their "god"; g)their "church"; h)society as a whole.

    Yea, those are some reeeaaallly reliable numbers. hahahaha. What a dumbass you are.

    Aside from the fact your 162,000 is a bullshit number, comparing it to ~10,000 murders and coming to the conclusion that this makes gun owners 16 times more able to defend themselves is also bullshit. First off, you're starting with bullshit numbers. Second, it's not a valid comparison. Here's why: you don't (and can't) know how many of the former are part of the latter. Why can't you know? Because they're from independent studies. And you're dumb enough to try to mix their results and draw a conclusion.

    Leave statistical analysis to people who actually understand how it works.

More comments from ottermaton >>