techflaws 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4378)

• On the post: Megaupload Asks Hong Kong Court To Drop Restraining Order On Megaupload Assets, Claiming Legal Violations

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 24 Apr, 2014 @ 02:45am

  Re:

  Just as this must be the one of brainless anonymous cowards.

• On the post: Supreme Court Discussion In Aereo: At Least The Justices Recognize The Harm They Might Do

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2014 @ 03:25am

  Re: Re: Re:

  If it was perfectly legal as you seem inclined to believe, then this litigation would never have gotten off the ground.
  
  That's BS. The industry will stop as nothing, because they hate Aereo. They even try to redefine the meaning of the word 'public'.

• On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2014 @ 11:04pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, there are some...

  Apparently you've never read any of Microsoft's documentation
  
  The fact that they did submit ~6000 pages of it to ISO to get their crappy document format approved PLUS the nature of these specs ('do like Word for Windows') is all you'd ever need to know about their idea of quality.

• On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2014 @ 08:06am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, there are some...

  it was in no way just a graphic shell duct taped atop DOS like Win3 was.
  
  It certainly felt like it, frequent crashes and all.

• On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2014 @ 02:17am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, there are some...

  Feel free to point out any non-factual statements. Also do keep in mind, it was written shortly before Vista so what John said about Windows NT (not 7, not 8) would still apply.

• On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2014 @ 11:13pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, there are some...

  Not excatly a citation but a bit more on "new" technology.

• On the post: Why Is The US Gov't Arguing In The Supreme Court To Reshape The Internet The Way Broadcasters Want It?

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2014 @ 10:46pm

  Re:

  Because they don't, and shouldn't, support piracy which is essentially what Aereo is?
  
  So now people are even pirating free content? Imagine that.

• On the post: And, Of Course, Labels Sue Pandora Over Pre-1972 Recordings

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2014 @ 10:31pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  But since you're a lying scumbag, your opionion isn't relevant to anyone.

• On the post: Why Didn't The MPAA Weigh In On Garcia v. Google?

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2014 @ 10:42pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  And still you look like the moron here. Well done!

• On the post: MPAA's Lawsuit Against Megaupload Is Yet Another Broadside Attack On The Internet

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2014 @ 09:28pm

  Re: Re: Re: Megaupload

  Apparently your are already consulting for the MPAA cause they have shown as much evidence to substantiate their claims.

• On the post: MPAA's Lawsuit Against Megaupload Is Yet Another Broadside Attack On The Internet

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2014 @ 09:27pm

  Re: Re: Megaupload

  If the MPAA can't, why should he?

• On the post: MPAA's Lawsuit Against Megaupload Is Yet Another Broadside Attack On The Internet

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2014 @ 09:30pm

  it seems to be hoping that the courts won't notice that it's basically making up what they want copyright law to be, rather than what it is.
  
  Cause that worked so well for Viacom.

• On the post: Comcast Apparently Hopes No One Actually Looks At Its Ridiculously Misleading Claims Of Broadband Competition

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2014 @ 09:19pm

  Childish leetspeat aside, I haven't read anything by Karl here that would qualify as hatred.
  
  Blocking a merger won't change that reality.
  Allowing the merger to go through won't either.

• On the post: EU Data Retention Requirements Ruled 'Invalid' By EU Court Of Justice

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2014 @ 09:32pm

  Re:

  Once CDU party member immediately took to Twitter claiming that this was a day for organized crime to celebrate. Of course he could offer NO evidence for data retentention (initially planned to be implementd to stop terrorism) would do anything about this nor how it did not surge since 2010 when the temporary data rentention was put on hold.
  
  The CDU party is also thinking loudly about cutting the powers of the Bundesverfassungericht which smacked down several of the laws they cooked up.

• On the post: Sony And YouTube Take Down Sintel; Blender's Open Source, Creative Commons, Crowdfunded Masterpiece

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 07 Apr, 2014 @ 10:40am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The price of a favor...

  What system specified in what law exactly?

• On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 07 Apr, 2014 @ 08:37am

  Re: Re: Re:

  Good riddance.

• On the post: DOJ Continues To Obstruct Efforts For Megaupload Users To Get Their Files Back

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2014 @ 10:00pm

  Re: Re:

  Happens all the time with the shills here. Weird to see they keep trying.

• On the post: DOJ Continues To Obstruct Efforts For Megaupload Users To Get Their Files Back

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2014 @ 09:57pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Says the jackass who fails to spin the story. So based on what law can the DOJ stop MU from accessing the servers?

• On the post: Prenda Actually Wins A Round; Order To Pay Back Settlements Tossed In Minnesota

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2014 @ 03:33am

  Re: Re: Re:

  You mad, bro?

• On the post: Details Show MIT Employees Gleefully Helped With Prosecution And Persecution Of Aaron Swartz

  

  techflaws ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2014 @ 09:48pm

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

  Look who's talking.

Next >>