Chris 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1771)

• On the post: Ride Sharing Services Lead Taxi Medallion Values To Plummet (And That's A Good Thing)

  

  Chris ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2014 @ 03:34pm

  Re:

  Cities across the states are losing billions of dollars that otherwise would be spent on local municipal projects.

  You say bug, I say feature.

• On the post: Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Arizona's Revenge Porn Law Over First Amendment Concerns

  

  Chris ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2014 @ 09:33am

  Implied Dichotomy

  While this law would have made revenge porn illegal, it also made plenty of protected speech a criminal act.

  I'm not sure that those two things are necessarily separate categories, which is most of the problem with these sorts of laws in the first place.

• On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality

  

  Chris ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2014 @ 02:42pm

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

  T-Mobile doesn't have a hard cap, though. They have a data amount above which they may, at their discretion, slow down your connection.
  
  If their "cap" is intended to be enforced against people who are trying to cheap out and use their phone as a mobile hotspot to support a full time business, then the average user using a larger amount of streaming data may not be what T-Mobile is targeting anyway.

• On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality

  

  Chris ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2014 @ 02:36pm

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

  Because internet service is becoming recognized as an fundamental human right by the UN and others

  Always amusing when people act like mentioning UN recognition of a thing is supposed to be a convincing argument to anyone, anywhere. (It's an appeal to an authority where the authority in question is not even remotely convincing as a source, even if someone were to miss the obvious fallacy involved).
  

  Do you want

  There's a lot of stuff I want, and a lot of stuff I don't want, and the answer to those questions are not correlated with what the law should be.

• On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality

  

  Chris ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2014 @ 02:22pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  but new and innovative services that deliver data in as-yet unknown ways being discriminated against.

  And, of course, people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against businesses. That's business-ism!
  

  I'd also like to remind people how this "Music Freedom" thing kind of proves that data caps are bogus.

  Not true, without some other piece of data that you haven't yet specified (for example, evidence that streaming is a majority of bandwidth use for the average person).

• On the post: T-Mobile Still Doesn't Understand (Or Simply Doesn't Care) That Their 'Music Freedom' Plan Tramples Net Neutrality

  

  Chris ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2014 @ 02:15pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Someone has some reading to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

• On the post: Thanks To Namecheap For Sponsoring Techdirt's Switch To SSL

  

  Chris ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2014 @ 03:16pm

  Something else to note: they also accept Bitcoin!

• On the post: Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?

  

  Chris ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2014 @ 12:31pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  And, as I understand it, it was just as terrible then.

• On the post: Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?

  

  Chris ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2014 @ 08:48am

  Re: Democrats and Republicans must never agree

  Whenever Democrats and Republicans are in agreement, you can be sure you're about to get it good and hard.

  FTFY

• On the post: Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?

  

  Chris ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2014 @ 08:47am

  Re:

  Screw what you believe in, it's all about opposing the other side.

  That's because they essentially believe in the same principles. Raw tribal hatred is the only thing the parties have left to bang the war drums about.

• On the post: Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?

  

  Chris ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2014 @ 08:44am

  Re: Re: WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?

  Clearly, any opposition to Obama must be racism because the Republicans were totes cool with Bill Clinton as prez and would never have obstructed, disagreed with, or impeached him. (And don't blow your load so soon; the election isn't for two more years! You've got plenty of time to spread your very reasonable "DAE republicans are evil and I hope they all die?? lolz!" opinion before you activate The Misogyny Card.)
  
  Are you sure you're not parody?

• On the post: Guy Accused Of Operating Silk Road 2.0 Arrested In SF… Just Like The Last One

  

  Chris ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2014 @ 01:50pm

  Re: Cocaine

  You won't have to wait long. I'm sure the new DPR is flipping the switch on 3.0 as we speak.

• On the post: Lena Dunham Once Again Threatens Lawsuit Over An Interpretation Of Her Book That She Doesn't Like

  

  Chris ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 11:59am

  Re: Re: Legally

  She was not seven years old for all of the scenarios she wrote about. The pattern of creepiness apparently continued until she was 17.

  Hiding behind the veil of "I never said that" or "thou hast said it", not me... is disingenuous lying. If you're not impugning motive, why bring it up at all?

  Again: Disclosed Fact vs Undisclosed Fact
  
  "Based on your publicly-made statement, you are a child molester" is a protected opinion, since it's based on publicly disclosed facts. There's nothing "disingenuous" about it, and no one is "hiding behind a veil" that I can see.

• On the post: Seat Belt Violation Greeted With Spike Strip, Smashed Window And Tasering

  

  Chris ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2014 @ 07:43am

  Re: Re: Re: This guy had it coming

  If the cop is wrong, he gets sued and fired.

  What country are you from? With statements like that, it's obvious you're not from the US.

• On the post: The Threats Against Emma Watson Were All An Anti-4Chan Campaign

  

  Chris ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2014 @ 11:42am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes, they're all bad.

  So if a small man attacks a larger man, the larger man is morally prohibited from defending himself?
  
  (FYI, that would have made a much better comparison for you to have made in the first place, but I realize it wouldn't have had the same, blatant appeal to emotion as an adult beating up on a child.)

• On the post: The Threats Against Emma Watson Were All An Anti-4Chan Campaign

  

  Chris ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2014 @ 07:15am

  Re: Re: Sometimes, they're all bad.

  Equating adult women to children seems rather . . . sexist.

• On the post: The Threats Against Emma Watson Were All An Anti-4Chan Campaign

  

  Chris ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2014 @ 07:11am

  Re: Re:

  "It's not nearly as much of a problem as misogyny"

  Sure it is; society just doesn't care enough about men to make the effort to look into their problems.

• On the post: Healthcare.gov Is A Security Disaster… And Those Working On It Knew It, And Tried To Stop Independent Security Review To Hide It

  

  Chris ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2014 @ 10:33am

  Re:

  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

• On the post: Texas Tosses Out Law Against Peeping Tom Photographs As A First Amendment Violation

  

  Chris ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2014 @ 02:29pm

  Re: What the fuck?

  Did . . . did you even read the article?
  

  Privacy constitutes a compelling government interest when the privacy interest is substantial and the invasion occurs in an intolerable manner. We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general public, such as up a skirt.
  
  But § 21.15(b)(1) contains no language addressing privacy concerns. The provision certainly applies to situations in which privacy has been violated, but that is because the provision applies broadly to any non-consensual act of photography or visual recording

  I mean, seriously, it's right there. The court specifically acknowledges that there could be a law to protect privacy in places where privacy is expected, but that this one is over-broad.
  
  Court: "This law not only criminalizes actions unprotected by the first amendment, but also actions protected by the first amendment. Narrow it down a bit."
  Mouth-Breathing Peanut Gallery: "OMG THEY THINK TAKING UPSKIRT PICTURES OF CHILDREN IS OKAY!"

• On the post: DOJ Investigates Law Enforcement Agencies All Over The Nation But Can't Be Bothered To Police Itself

  

  Chris ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2014 @ 08:30am

  Classic

  Who Watches the Watchers of the Watchers?

Next >>