ottermaton’s Techdirt Profile

ottermaton

About ottermaton




ottermaton’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 4th, 2014 @ 7:22am

    Re: Weed kills...

    Well, in your parade of bullshit, you got one thing right:
    The effects of nicotine are NOTHING LIKE the effects of THC.

    That is correct, they are nothing alike. Perhaps you should educate yourself just a little by reading this article. Nicotine is a poison that has been used for centuries to murder. THC? Not so much. Actually, not AT ALL.

    Here's some quotes from the article:

    But back in the 19th century ... what people did know was that nicotine was one lethal compound.

    And itís that elegant arrangement that turns nicotine into such an effective poison, moving through the bloodstream with exceptional speed.

    Itís worth noting that because theyíre based on plant chemistry, pure nicotine poisons have been acceptable to the U.S. government for use by organic farmers treating insect infestations. And also that these same pesticides have occasionally turned up in more recent homicide investigations and in one unnerving 2003 mass poisoning incident in Michigan.

    So ... uh ... stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

  • Mar 3rd, 2014 @ 1:48pm

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

    Thanks for proving how ridiculous the argument about "experts" was.....

    Whoooooooosh! hahaha

    Yes, your argument is ridiculous.

  • Mar 3rd, 2014 @ 12:58pm

    (untitled comment)

    From the article: Kozinski, unfortunately, is not exactly known for his humility.

    Seriously? Can you name any judge that even has the smallest trace of humility? I've often wondered what kind of ego it must take to hold a position where it's your job to make decisions that can absolutely destroy lives

  • Mar 3rd, 2014 @ 12:55pm

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

    Well then I can get a bunch of "experts" that claim the sun is green, but that doesn't make it true......

    Ok, then, whenever you're to ready to trot out those experts we're all ears.

  • Feb 20th, 2014 @ 8:14pm

    (untitled comment)

    Mr. Geigner,

    That is the most compelling article I've read regarding these continuing incidents. My hat is off to you, sir.

  • Feb 9th, 2014 @ 7:49am

    Re: Re: Lets see..

    linux just comes with its own pdf reader.

    What? That's nonsense.

    If you were to say _most_ Linux distributions come with _a_ pdf reader, that would be correct. But even then, the choice of which reader (there are many) is included is usually tied to which desktop environment is being used (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc).

  • Feb 8th, 2014 @ 2:30am

    Re:

    "contentier"?

    What?

  • Feb 6th, 2014 @ 4:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Pay for Stay

    This is a little late so you may not even see it, but allow me to correct you again.

    Crediting you for time served has exactly the same result as paying you for the served, but withholding it to offset the fine so in that situation there it's a matter of semantics.

    It's more than "semantics" by a long shot. As I can illustrate with this very simple example: Suppose you have a fine of $11 and you get a per day "credit" of $10. In order to satisfy the fine you must be held 2 days minimum. Do you actually think they're going to give you the $9 change when you walk out the door? Or, even more absurdly, prorate the time so that you serve 26.4 hours? Hell no. And that's why it's not like being paid and why it's not just semantics.

    Charging you a per day fee, just means they have less to withhold so what else is the real difference?

    The per day fee is something completely outside the fines and something a person is still responsible for after leaving incarceration. I don't know how you figure this is "less to withhold" and a "difference" (both implying subtraction) when it's actually adding to the costs. Imagine a situation where the per day charge is higher than the per day credit (and in most counties the per day charge increases with each subsequent visit, so this is entirely possible); that would mean you would never get out. Absurd.

    I've never seen that before but it wouldn't surprise me if some places do that.

    That's pretty clear. So instead of trying to argue with me you should just listen instead.

  • Feb 4th, 2014 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re: Pay for Stay

    Neither of these situations exist with municipal jails and police departments enforcing petty misdemeanors such as traffic violations.

    You couldn't be more wrong. County/municipal jails are funded by the Federal government which determines the amount of funding by ... guess what? ... number of inmates!

    Also, most of these jails don't run their own food services. They contract it out. Guess what that means? Cutting rations to increase profits!!! Woohoo!

    So when you spend time in jail for a traffic ticket, they technically pay you instead of the other way around.

    That is the most distorted view of what's happening there that I have ever heard. Hell no they're not "paying" you to be in jail, they are just giving you credit against your fines for time served. That's a lot different than "paying" you.

    But the big point is this: those "credits" for time served go ONLY against fines and do NOTHING to reduce those charges that are assessed against an inmate for each day incarcerated. Those STILL have to be paid.

    Where the hell did you come up with this nonsense?

  • Jan 30th, 2014 @ 3:34pm

    Wow, that didn't take long at all.

  • Jan 29th, 2014 @ 3:31pm

    Re:

    I hear Google also take a lot of open-source software for Android and expand on it without releasing the source code for the expansions, when the GNU license explicitly says not to.

    Got a citation for that? Not that I'm disputing what you're saying, I'd just like to read more about it.

    I do know that they have written a lot of proprietary code that runs on top of Free software, thereby fairly effectively turning the whole platform proprietary (which I think is shitty enough in itself) but I haven't heard of them directly building on GPL code and not releasing it.

  • Jan 29th, 2014 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So you believe he is a ******* *******.Ok, that is your opinion and I am certainly not one to say you are wrong, but who is twisting your arm to read what he may have to say and compel you to act?

    Nobody is twisting my arm to read his drivel. In fact, I don't. What irks me, though, is that his sole intent is to derail any conversation and inject his entirely irrelevant point of view on all manners of nonsense. What then follows is that lots of people get drawn into arguing with him (to which, I'll add, he NEVER listens to ESPECIALLY when facts are introduced), thereby giving him what he (clearly lacks) and craves: attention.

    I don't come here to read his moronic rants, nor do I want to read people arguing with a moron. And that is why I'll continue to
    REPORT OOTB AND EVERYONE WHO REPLIES TO HIM

  • Jan 29th, 2014 @ 9:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!

    you cant 'pick and choose' from the constitution buddy,

    I didn't. WTF are you talking about?

    One part say "artists need protect"

    Where the hell does it say that? You are completely making shit up now.

    nice try, but no prize..

    Fuck you very much.

  • Jan 29th, 2014 @ 9:28am

    Re:

    "Re No. 9, no matter whether one agrees or disagrees with comments by the individual ..."


    It has nothing to do with "disagreement." It has everything to do with ootb being a gigantic fucking asshole, with a looooooooong history of being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive (he even admits to this). And that's the least of his faults.

    What really needs to happen is for more people to report ootb every single time along with EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO HIM.

  • Jan 28th, 2014 @ 9:22am

    Re: Re:

    Silly rabbit. They would never do that because they are professionals

  • Jan 25th, 2014 @ 5:30pm

    Re: Creatir/consumer dichotomy ?? what !!!!!


    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

    BY

    SECURING FOR A LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITING AND DISCOVERIES.


    Boy, your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking (to say the least) aren't they? You stress the last part of the sentence of that sentence as if it's the end-all-be-all of the Copyright Clause and the reason for it's existence. But it's not.

    Securing those rights is just a side-effect of the real purpose of copyright. Or, it might be more accurate to say that it's the tool that is used. And the only reason for the existence of that tool is TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS.

    If, at the time of writing, the authors would have thought of a different way to achieve that goal those "rights" would be have never existed in the first place. They certainly didn't prior to that, and they are certainly not inalienable human rights. Governments don't grant those type of rights, they can only make laws forbidding taking them away. This copyright "right" was GRANTED by the government. Big difference.

    You might want to redefine it, but we all understand it now.

    No, clearly you do not.

  • Jan 22nd, 2014 @ 10:29am

    (untitled comment)

    This article really caught my eye as just last night I finished watching The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and was thinking just this morning, in reference to the Nixon administration falsely trying to associate Ellsberg with Russian influences, that this is exactly what Rep. Rogers is doing to Snowden. Incredible.

    Quite ironic that the Nixon administration memo quoted above states, "For history is replete with repetition and notable similarities exist." Apparently that's 100% true.

    The film is from 2009 so it doesn't have any "influences" from the current Snowden revelations, but the way everything plays out is eerily similar. If you haven't seen the film you definitely should.

  • Jan 20th, 2014 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re: All-time Funniest Mike-ism:

    At least mostly. He did reply but completely ignored the factual substance, just went off on some completely different rant. Can't even admit when he's so clearly wrong. Sad, really.

  • Jan 20th, 2014 @ 10:19am

    Re: Re: All-time Funniest Mike-ism:

    I've been in the habit lately of reporting anyone who replies to the village idiot (and I really wish more people would do the same), but I'm making an exception on this one because you just whooped the living shit out of him with on-the-record facts (something notably missing from all of his comments).

    It's pretty clear why he's never registered that screen name: because it makes it more difficult (but definitely not impossible) to search his past comments and make him eat his own words, just as you have done by making him eat Mike's words which he is completely and utterly mis-characterizing. Well done sir!

    It would be highly amusing to see him try to refute your comments, but we know that's not going to happen. For all his squawking about how Mike won't engage in debate with him (what would be the point?), I've never seen him reply back to a comment with this kind of factual substance.

  • Jan 19th, 2014 @ 7:32am

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

    I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. At least it's different from the way I read it.

    You cannot say that your crimes are OK merely because others also engage in criminal behavior.


    I understood his comment to be saying the things he mentioned are also immoral/unethical and we just haven't criminalized them. Yet, at least.

    I may be wrong, though.

More comments from ottermaton >>