MrTroy’s Techdirt Profile


About MrTroy

MrTroy’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 22nd, 2016 @ 6:44pm

    Re: "they would only kill a small number of Americans."

    And the societies they've erected haven't yet properly apologized to the nations they displaced.

    Happily, that is no longer blanket true! nous-peoples

    Well, you could argue that "properly apologizing" involves more than just words, but it was a pleasant change not to be embarrased about our leaders for a few days.

  • Sep 21st, 2016 @ 7:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed the point

    The best way to help them is to actually help them... And America has long been causing world trouble with its "helping hand" methods.

    Now I'm confused.

    A lot of people do not know that just mindless giving is often more destructive than giving anything at all.

    Lots of people are wrong, too. I'm pretty sure there are more options than the two you suggest, anyway.

  • Sep 21st, 2016 @ 7:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Enquiry in re other operating systems

    which is sorting out what OS's it will allow to be installed on a computer, based on whether an RMT RAID driver is built-into the OS Kernel? That's nothing but fingerprinting for identification, at best!

    What? That's like saying that my Intel CPU is performing fingerprinting by not letting me install an OS based on whether it supports the x86 instruction set.

  • Sep 19th, 2016 @ 8:04pm

    Re: Use the tools you are given

    I feel the same. Copyright law is being used here because there is no plagiarism law.

    What are the other avenues? Civil theft, trade secret? They don't really seem like they fit because the draft was given to Sutton without any kind of non-disclosure agreement.

    It seems fine for now to ignore the legal route and just leave it to the court of public opinion; but at what point is it worse to set up a kangaroo court rather than deal with things in a proper legal arena in which all parties are meant to get due process?

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 7:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Science and Protectionism

    Yeah... no. Considering that 99% of temperature data comes from SATELLITES that didn't exist until a couple decades ago, and that we have NO RECORDS OF ANY KIND from more than a few thousand years ago, I'll take all average global temperature data values older than 20 years with a grain of salt.

    Yeah... no.

  • Sep 7th, 2016 @ 10:35pm

    Re: Now scale this out to their other properties

    The only people you can trust with your data is yourself, because *you care* about your own data, but companies only care about profit and return on shareholder value, which is a few steps away from your data.

    I find your optimism about the combination of how much I care about my data and how capable I am of taking care of it charming, given just how long my NAS has been out of service...

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 1:01am

    Re: Re:

    So, by extra cost to yourself you can improve a terrible experience to merely mediocre? Sounds awesome!

    The free-to-air coverage in Australia was actually pretty good, I thought.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:55am

    Re: Not all bad news

    Create a tool utilising malicious code to try to help people against their will? What could possibly go wrong?

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 10:57pm


    Sounds like we'd all benefit from a simplified "Is it RICO?" flowchart, along the lines of this one for meteorites...

  • Jul 24th, 2016 @ 8:26pm


    "The C-S Programming Language Bundle" just doesn't have the same ring to it...

  • Jul 17th, 2016 @ 11:30pm

    Re: Re: The whole industry is corrupt and needs reformed

    I think I heard about that. The allergic reaction isn't actually fatal, but the dose of irony is too much for most people to handle.

  • Jul 14th, 2016 @ 7:57pm

    Re: Re: Will none of you liberals have the courage...

    I take this the other way. Every time someone tries to blame radical Islam for the evils in the world, I'll think they're talking about this guy!

  • Jul 12th, 2016 @ 7:30pm

    Everything is relative

    Terrorist attacks are a real problem.

    Yeah, but are they really? It seems to me that the reaction to terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks is a much bigger problem than the attacks themselves.

    If most of the time and resources that are currently allocated to "stopping terrorism" were instead redirected to bringing everyone to a living wage and basic education (globally, if possible)... then not only would it be more effective at reducing terrorism (IMO), but it is also likely to reduce pedestrian crime... and just be kinda nice.

    But I won't hold my breath.

  • Jun 30th, 2016 @ 10:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're using the term free market, but it doesn't really count unless you understand what the words mean and use them appropriately.

    A free market means that there are no restrictions on who can buy and sell an item. The competition between buyers and between sellers allows the market to set the value of the item based on an equillibrium of supply and demand.

    I am very keen on a free market - including the freedom to choose when and where to sell or market a product.

    You're confusing free market with global/local market concepts. You can have a free local market (which isn't actually free because copyright and lack of second sale, but whatever, that's a compromise we currently live with) and a non-free global market. And localised release windows are only possible with a non-free global market, kind of by definition.

    If people don't like they choice, they don't have to enjoy the product. They could create their own and distribute them in any manner they see fit. That's the beauty of a free market.

    I make these lovely tables, but I only sell them to Scottish people who have lived for less than three years in the British isles, and they have to sign a contract affirming that they may never sell the table to anyone else or else ownership reverts to me. But I'm not forcing anyone to buy these tables, they're free to create their own and distribute them in any manner they see fit. Free market, yay! Yeah, no.

    The stepped release concept is in some part to release a film or whatever in the best paying market first, so that they can (like all good business should) extract as much profit as possible for their shareholders and owners. Releasing a product into lower dollar markets first would just support the natural flow from low cost to high cost centers, handing (diminished) profits to others.

    And that made sense in the '80s. Why not just release it TO THE WORLD at the higher price, then step the price down as you'd normally release to wider, lower cost, markets? You know, live in the 21st century and reap all the same benefits as your legacy business model with all the same advantages of a global marketplace? I mean, really?

  • Jun 23rd, 2016 @ 12:02am


    Those threats, regardless of how many of them are empty, in total ruin lives and I can't find a good reason to protect them.

    Granted that we're talking about Australia here and not America, so protected speech isn't even a thing... on the internet, how can you tell that a threat is empty? Does that imply that all threats on the internet should be prosecuted as if they were real and imminent? What if the person^H^H^H^H^H^Hdickhead posting the threat lives in another city? Another country?

    And if it's the totality of the threats that causes harm, where none of them is actionable by itself... then how do you possibly handle that within the scope of the law? Every poster has to spend their share of the 3 year total jail term in jail*?

    I am aware, that it's a difficult subject and we probably won't see a nuanced or narrow law from any legislation on this planet, but wouldn't it be great if we did?

    Actually, I don't believe it would even be good. It has been shown uncountable times through history that it is nearly impossible to change society through enacting laws, so it really doesn't matter how well written the law is - it won't fix society. It could *possibly* fix the problem if you manage to incarcerate the entire population of potential offenders, but that really just swaps in a whole different problem.

    If you want to change society, you have to change society. There are no shortcuts or ways around dealing with the root of this problem. If you want to live in a society in which it is unacceptable to treat women (or anyone) in this way, then make it unacceptable.

    * - That would actually be pretty funny.

  • Jun 22nd, 2016 @ 8:19pm


    So if this person had walked up to another person and said the same thing, would it just be "trolling", or would it be more serious?

    Why does the law mention venue at all? And why doesn't it define "serious offense"? I stand by my declaration that this law is the equivalent to an "on the internet" patent, and is about as useful to polite society.

    I do concede the point that this law's existence is a useful foil to people asking for more bad internet-related laws, but it's akin to saying that we don't need a bear to patrol our home, because a mountain lion is already doing the job.

    I'm also Australian, but I don't think that a law has to apply to you before you're qualified to comment on its quality, particularly since this law contains exactly zero cultural nuance.

  • Jun 22nd, 2016 @ 5:32pm

    Re: Re:

    Not to mention, this sounds like a pile-on law - making it illegal to do illegal stuff "on the internet".

    If it's already illegal face-to-face, then you don't need the internet law. If it's not illegal face-to-face, then why is it illegal on the internet? If these laws end up pushing abuse off the internet and into face-to-face encounters... have we actually improved anything?

  • Jun 22nd, 2016 @ 5:30pm

    Re: being drunk is not an excuse to do whatever you want.

    Sometimes I think I'd like to see it go the other way around, myself. If being drunk was a multiplier on any sentence, rather than a mitigator, then I like to think we'd see people doing less stupid stuff while drunk...

    Of course, I could write pages about why it's actually a terrible idea, so I leave it at occasional daydreams.

  • Jun 20th, 2016 @ 9:10pm


    Your all arguing about whether he is right or not. It simply doesnt matter.

    You may be correct that it doesn't matter, though that's a symptom of a much larger systematic failure... but who is arguing about Brennan being right?

    As for "everyone scrambl[ing] to prove him wrong", that's not happening. Everyone is merely pointing out that Brennan has ALREADY been proven wrong. The work was done months ago, because everyone knew that this kind of lie was inevitable and wanted to have the data ready to prove it.

    Do you have any suggestions for how better to fight against Congress pushing bad mandates other than pushing back on invalid assertions?

  • Jun 20th, 2016 @ 8:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Idiot or liar

    You mean it's been working for every administration for at least 50 years?

More comments from MrTroy >>