That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 23rd, 2018 @ 2:13am

    Red flag large enough to cover a football field

    When you have to slip your pet bill into another, 'must pass' bill you are all but admitting that you do not think it could withstand scrutiny and challenge.

    If it's a good bill then great, discuss and vote for it on it's own merits, don't tack it on to a completely unrelated bill and try to slip it through.

  • Mar 23rd, 2018 @ 2:06am

    Makes perfect, if twisted sense

    To would-be dictators and tyrants the worst form of 'terrorism' is not inflicting deaths among the general public, it's dissent, challenging or calling out those in power.

    After all there's millions of the unwashed masses and more always popping up, but criticizing the ruling class, those who 'know better' and are the country, well that threatens everyone(but especially those that really count), and is therefore far more serious a crime, one that needs to be nipped right in the bud and/or thrown in a cell.

  • Mar 22nd, 2018 @ 10:18pm

    'It wasn't my fault, they MADE me punch them.'

    "The Food Bill is a controversial issue that's used every election cycle to attack the Sheriff's Office," Entrekin said. "Alabama Law is clear regarding my personal financial responsibilities of feeding inmates. Until the legislature acts otherwise, the Sheriff must follow the current law."

    Strange, though I haven't seen the law in question I find it difficult to believe that it includes a clause stating that sheriffs must use money allocated to feeding inmates for their own personal gain. It's almost as though he's trying to hide his despicable actions by claiming that the law requires him to act like a world-class asshole, rather than doing it entirely on his own.

    Oddly enough, his 'defense' reminds me of an XKCD comic, one involving free speech(no, not that one) where the point was made that if the only defense you have for saying something is that the first amendment protects your right to do so, you're basically admitting that your only defense is that it's isn't literally illegal to say a particular thing.

    In the same way, 'the law allows me to take all this money meant to feed inmates for personal gain' might be legally sound(and if so they really need to kill that law), but it does not make his wanton greed and indifference to the plight of others any less disgusting and inhumane.

  • Mar 22nd, 2018 @ 9:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not a problem, and you don't even need to go trawling through horrible examples of humanity to do it. Simply find someone competent, have them read the report written about the last time the CIA decided to 'torture some folks', quiz them on their retention to see how much of it they understood and remember, and then ask them a simple question:

    'Should the USG engage in, or support the practice of, torture?'

    Anything other than 'No' is an instant disqualification, and would result in moving on to the next candidate until you find one that gets it right.

    There, see, it's easy to find someone who is knowledgeable on the subject and who isn't a monstrous and disgusting human being.

  • Mar 22nd, 2018 @ 9:46pm

    "It's acceptable to do... just not to ME."

    It wouldn't magically make it right, and I too disagree with the 'and then you can torture people' second half, but it would force pro-torture people into a 'put up or shut up' position, where they either go through what they are willing to subject others to, or flat out admit to gross hypocrisy.

    My only objection at that point is what it would do to the people engaged in the 'test'. The pro-torture people I would have zero sympathy with, but for the ones actually doing it you'd either need to hire sociopaths or sadists, or cause some serious mental issues to anyone even remotely decent, and neither of those are really good options.

    Much like crippled encryption, those pushing to make others less safe and/or suffer should be expected to either endure what they would foist on others and that they claim is acceptable, or admit that what they are proposing isn't acceptable, for them or others.

  • Mar 22nd, 2018 @ 9:44pm

    "Inspired by who? Sorry, never heard of them."

    I doubt it will go that far, people have been creating pretty much for the entirety of human history(even before copyright strangely enough), but one possible outcome will be that not a single song in that part of the country will be inspired by a song before it.

    Overnight every song will be entirely new, thought up purely in the songwriter's head with any similarities with other music being entirely coincidental, and if someone tries to argue otherwise well clearly any comparisons are entirely in their head, because being inspired by someone and incorporating something similar as tribute is simply not allowed in the 9th Circuit.

    Tributes and declarations of inspiration, which previously would have driven attention back to the source, will all but dry up, it being too legally risky to admit that yeah, you liked X so you wanted to make something like it.

  • Mar 22nd, 2018 @ 9:24pm

    "If I say you're guilty that should be be good enough."

    They struggle with defining what a repeat infringer is and what the punishment is ... all the while not defining what an infringer is.

    What's really absurd is that as cases like this demonstrate there are plenty of people who don't read it as repeat infringer, but believe, and are willing to argue in court, that it really means 'repeatedly accused infringer'.

    You've got people and companies arguing that simply being accused of copyright infringement is equivalent to being found guilty of infringement, that accusation alone is enough to establish guilt and that companies should be punished for not treating those accusations as such.

    In their 'valiant' moral crusade to protect their government granted monopoly rights, they demonstrate that they are more than willing to throw much more important things like 'innocent until proven guilty' right under the bus.

  • Mar 21st, 2018 @ 10:00pm

    Re: I wonder

    That brings up the question of 'why continue torture if nothing can be reliable learned from it'?

    Because some people believe it does work(one US Supreme Court Justice literally used the tv show 24 as an example), that the ends justify the means, and never stop to actually think what those 'means' actually involve, or brush it aside as 'well they're bad people, so they deserve bad things'.

    As nasch noted however the effectiveness should never even be a question, as the practice should be considered so abhorrent that whether it works wouldn't even matter or come up. You could solve a lot of problems if how you do it doesn't matter, but only if you want to throw any morality or ethics out the window, and once you start doing that things get really bad really quick.

  • Mar 21st, 2018 @ 9:52pm

    They hate us for our freedoms. The torture and drone strikes too

    It's job is to deceive, spy, and backstab, just as the military's job is to kill and destroy.

    Within limits, that is the important part. While the 'limits' have been stretched to the breaking point at times(if not outright broken), once you start employing the tactics of your enemies you are no better than them. Once you throw out the rules an already ugly business(war/military action) becomes vastly worse, and that is why those limits exist.

    However, if 'government agencies should have rules and not engage in gross violations of human rights' isn't a good enough justification to not engage in torture, you've also got the idea of 'turnabout is fair play'.

    The USG engaging in torture means they have zero grounds to object if an enemy does it to US soldiers(or hell, even non-combatants). Engaging in torture makes friendly forces far more at risk for the same thing, and provides a perfect tool that the enemy can use to recruit and get people against you.

    Even ignoring the ethical concerns, the fact that it doesn't work, the practical concerns should be plenty. If you don't want US citizens and/or military personnel to be tortured, it kinda helps if the USG doesn't engage in or at the very least appoint as head of the CIA someone who defends the practice.

    There is no 'rational debate' to be had about torture if it involves defending it, you might as well have a 'rational debate' about rape. Sure you might be able to dream up a hypothetical scenario where raping someone, or threatening to rape them might prevent what you see as a 'greater evil', but at the point you're defending torture or rape you've absolutely lost any moral high ground, and need to take a long look at the tattered remains of your ethical and moral systems and how you apply them to the world.

  • Mar 21st, 2018 @ 9:18pm

    Re: feeding the trolls

    You know an article has really hit a nerve when the usual gang/individual really ramps up the personal attacks and insults.

    What would make it extra funny would be if they think that anyone is fooled by the multiple posts by 'multiple' people, rather than seeing it for what it is, just more deranged ranting by TD's most dedicated troll/stalker.

  • Mar 21st, 2018 @ 7:06pm

    Thanks for the laugh

    That that was the best you could come up with was just priceless, thanks for that.

  • Mar 21st, 2018 @ 6:42pm

    Assume the worst

    If they are so desperate to hide what went on, and the only person involved who's been punished is the one who revealed the program, the default assumption should be that the agency and those involved were fully in support of the program, ended it only because they felt they had to, and would start it back up in a heartbeat.

    This would include Haspel until and unless evidence was presented making clear exactly to what extent she was involved. Making one of those involved in the torture of prisoners head of the CIA is basically a public admission by the USG, even more so than the refusal to investigate or prosecute, that the USG fully supports the practice of torture.

  • Mar 21st, 2018 @ 6:34pm

    Congrats, you're a disgusting individual

    Would you similarly expect a counselor for sexual abuse victims to have themselves engaged in the practice? After all, who would know better what's involved than someone who's done it directly?

    I give you points only for publicly admitting what a despicable person you are via defending torture and someone involved in it, and can only hope that you're just playing the part of a poe.

  • Mar 21st, 2018 @ 6:25pm

    Handy list

    So there's 97 people who are in favor of screwing over the internet, including victims of sex trafficking, so long as it gets them a bit of PR and/or makes hollywood happy.

    There's selling out, and then there's doing so in a way that makes it crystal clear where your loyalties lie and how low you're willing to sink for your own gains. These individuals, and the ones in the house that voted in favor have more than managed the latter.

  • Mar 21st, 2018 @ 6:02pm

    'Sounds like my stuff, that's good enough to sue.'

    It's 100% legal, as long as you only look at music pree 1920 or so.

    Right until someone claims that your song sounds just a little too much like theirs, which is not out of copyright, and sues you anyway. By allowing lawsuits based upon what something sounds like, whether the 'infringement' is based upon something that's actually covered by copyright, the bar to be sued has not been lowered, it's been buried.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Content seems to be getting all it wants of late.

    Keep dodging and projecting your own actions if you think it accomplishes anything, just don't expect anyone else to be impressed.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 7:14pm

    If it's not games then...

    Games(pen and paper, board or digital) make for convenient punching-bags as they tend not to have 'generous' groups supporting them that might be upset to have their product maligned.

    They also serve as an easy out, if you blame the games that a violent person may or may not have played, then you don't need to look any deeper.

    Did the person have psychological issues that were missed/ignored?

    Did they have a problematic home-life that was also missed/ignored?

    How about influences other than games, like movies, tv and so on?

    School life, how was that?

    Basically were there societal influences that might have caused them to snap and decide that killing one or more people was an acceptable act, influences that might raise some uncomfortable questions and involve spreading some blame beyond just one person and one aspect of their life.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 7:02pm

    'I reject your studies and substitute my self-rightousness'

    Nah, I've saved several kingdoms, planets, even a galaxy or two, that's plenty to 'sooth the last pangs of conscience' over killing digital people.

    (Understanding the difference between fantasy and reality might help too, but I'm sure it's of negligible importance in comparison.)

    After all, if ending a digital 'life' is supposed to be something to feel guilty over, then saving one should more than make up for it, especially given the difference in scope.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Re: Big Content seems to be getting all it wants of late.

    Yeah, think I'll need to see the actual study and what it involved before I take them at their word, given the 'study' that came up the last time 'pirates sites are the number one vector of malware' was mentioned it was laughably bad.

  • Mar 19th, 2018 @ 5:59pm


    And of course after all that they still try to pretend that they have the moral high ground over... well, anyone really.

More comments from That One Guy >>