Arthur 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (94)

• On the post: Postal Service Could Be On The Hook For Millions For Daring To Memorialize The Korean War Memorial

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 16 May, 2012 @ 08:48am

  Makes no sense

  It's on public display. It was commissioned to be on public display. That means we're allowed to look at it, photograph it, paint it and remember it. If the artist doesn't like it (and, apparently, has the power to object) then, well, remove it! Move it to a secure, inaccessible building where the artist can sit and stare at it alone.
  
  
  
  If the artist owns the copyright and doesn't like it being photographed, the government is just going to have to remove it, cover it up or bury it.
  
  
  
  Sounds like a good idea. Commission a new monument from someone less greedy.

• On the post: Oracle/Google Case Shows Just How Totally Pointless It Is To Have Patents On Software

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2012 @ 02:21pm

  Re: Anonymous Coward

  "thing side with the idea"
  
  Thanks, that certainly clears things up. Say what?!

• On the post: Fight Is On Between Oracle And Google Over Java API Copyrights

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2012 @ 08:32pm

  Literal copying?

  I wonder what the odds are, if you have millions and millions of lines of code (as Android does) that you wouldn't find 9 matching lines?

• On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2012 @ 03:15pm

  Re: Re: Troll tip # 20348: Don't read the author's name

  No, you can use your ad hominem attacks any time your little heart desires. Remember, to be effective, don't bother addressing any of the points brought up and don't bother with facts, just ad hominem, that's all you need to "win" any debate. Go!

• On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2012 @ 12:37pm

  Re: Re: Re: Market realities?

  Oooo! Let's not forget to pull out the old "ad hominem" illogic -- another oldie but goody. That also still doesn't work. Thanks for playing.

• On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2012 @ 10:49am

  Re: Market realities?

  Do your really think you invented the "Strawman argument"? This is a old technique for attempting to win an argument with bad logic and bad data. It still doesn't work.
  
  You also seem to be "inventing" the "False dilemma" argument. This also still doesn't work.
  
  I'd ask you to use logic and facts for your arguments but that just might be beyond your abilities. Thanks for playing.

• On the post: Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2012 @ 03:37pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  I don't expect anything deeper from you though, diaper boy.
  
  And, with one sentence, you invalidate everything you said. Insults are the resort of those who cannot argue effectively. With that one sentence, you admit you have no case.

• On the post: Overreacting To Anonymous Is A Greater Threat To Freedom, Innovation & Creativity Than Any Of Their Attacks

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 12 Apr, 2012 @ 07:00am

  More laws! More!

  The problems with your proposal are:
  1. The current laws have not affected cracking at all. What makes you think more laws will be different.
  2. Such laws, while not stopping criminal behavior, end up criminalizing legal behavior.
  3. These laws, then, push law-abiding citizens TO "criminal" behavior in order to accomplish what used to be, and should be, legal activities.
  
  To summarize: Your solution does nothing to solve the problems but, instead, makes things a lot worse. Other than that, nice try!

• On the post: Overreacting To Anonymous Is A Greater Threat To Freedom, Innovation & Creativity Than Any Of Their Attacks

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2012 @ 02:48pm

  Re: "Freetards"

  Any intelligent person will always come down on the side of freedom, no matter what it costs. To refer to those who advocate freedom as "freetards" shows that your bias is toward less freedom and more control. It also shows that you are not as intelligent as you think you are.

• On the post: Overreacting To Anonymous Is A Greater Threat To Freedom, Innovation & Creativity Than Any Of Their Attacks

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2012 @ 12:51pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  You said "I don't see him as a particularly impartial viewer of anonymous."
  
  So, you only accept information from people who don't care about the subject? That's insane.
  
  Of course, I know that's not really what you do. In truth, you only accept information from people who agree with you. That is also insane but is all too common.
  
  You said "You can't debate something until you put it on a level playing field. This is certainly far from a level playing field right now.
  
  Interesting "rules" you go by. Intelligent people debate things all the time starting from uneven starting positions. That's what debate is all about! What you are really saying is, because the debate is already favoring a position you don't like, we must ignore and discount all the factors that support that viewpoint.
  
  Um... no.

• On the post: Why Do Publishers Treat Customers As Crooks With Scolding Copyright Notices?

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2012 @ 08:13am

  Ironic

  Legitimate customers who have paid for the ebook get threatening messages as if they were criminals.
  
  Those who actually download "pirated" ebooks will not get any such a message.
  
  Now exactly who do the publishers think they are talking to?

• On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2012 @ 04:22pm

  In favor of copyright

  "Hey Mike, if you really are in favor of copyright as you like to claim, then..."
  
  As usual, the troll uses false logic to "make his point". This particular one is the false assumption "if you are in favor of copyright AS IT EXISTS TODAY, then ...".
  
  Ah, to live in such a simple-minded world, eh? You don't have to read or think, just spew out the words.

• On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2012 @ 02:13pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Aw, did you miss the word "substantial" in the legal criteria? Poor troll. Don't make silly strawman arguments, it isn't helping your position.

• On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2012 @ 12:58pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
  
  So unproven assertions of guilt are a reason to shut down a site. Unproven assertions of the MAGNITUDE of the problem are a reason to over-react and "accidentally" stomp on free speech. Your own presumptions are SO good you feel that insulting me is an appropriate response.
  
  I think your response is a good example why your position is dangerous for all who support innocent until PROVEN guilty and for all who defend free speech.

• On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2012 @ 10:04am

  Re:

  "infringing content"
  
  And you have actual, verifiable, solid evidence that ALL of the content was infringing and ALL the page views were ONLY about infringing content.
  
  Or did you just accept the unproven assertions of those who have an agenda? Yeah, don't bother answering that, we already know.

• On the post: Video Showcases The Many Perfectly Legitimate Reasons To Jailbreak A Device

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2012 @ 08:18am

  Re: Car analogy

  Let's see if you can actually make this analogy work. Whether one agrees or not, it was determined that cars made a significant contribution to pollution which harmed a lot of people.
  
  Now, what part of a cell phone, tablet, etc matches that scenario? How is jailbreaking that device comparable to disabling emission controls?
  
  You think these are comparable so go ahead, work with your analogy and explain how this actually works in this argument. Show that you are not as stupid as your analogy makes you look.

• On the post: National Highway Transportation Safety Agency Says You Can Keep Your GPS — As Long As It's Completely Useless

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 29 Mar, 2012 @ 12:05pm

  More bunk.

  "Distracted drivers are generally as bad if not worse than drunk drivers."
  
  Bunk.
  
  Total unsubstantiated bunk.
  
  Real, valid, verifiable, scientific research required to substantiate this bunk ... and it doesn't exist.

• On the post: Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl, Literally

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 27 Mar, 2012 @ 10:14am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  "You realize of course that the apps in question are based on the very technology developed in the patents? You realize that without the original patent ideas, the product might not even exist?"
  
  You cannot understand that the apps in question were created without any knowledge or use of these patents. The patents in question were of no help in creating the app. Without those holy patents, the app would still have been created but, without those holy patents, the app could be used by those who need it.
  
  We wouldn't be having this discussion without the patents because the little girl would be able to use the app. The patents are the problem, not the solution.

• On the post: Japanese Court Misunderstands Autocomplete, Orders Google To Turn It Off To Protect 'Privacy'

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2012 @ 04:17pm

  Re:

  It isn't Google's data. Get it? The data comes from other user's searches, not some mysterious "Google repository of bad stuff". Do you think Google should stop users from making certain searches because "someone got upset"? And how would they do that?

• On the post: Japanese Court Misunderstands Autocomplete, Orders Google To Turn It Off To Protect 'Privacy'

  

  Arthur ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2012 @ 04:12pm

  Re: Re: Correlation and causation...

  And how is this Google's fault?

Next >>