Travis Miller 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (47) comment rss

  • On the post: BestNetTech Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2013 @ 02:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Good lord this is ignorant. So we just sat back and watched it all happened until then? Hell, not only were we supplying England to help hold back Germany, but we were even helping China to hold back Japan, and then we cut off Japan's oil supplies and started firing on German U-boats - all before Pearl Harbor.

    But yeah, we didn't care about what was going on, right?
    Ignorant.

  • On the post: Copyright Killbots Strike Again: Official DNC Livestream Taken Down By Just About Every Copyright Holder

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2012 @ 02:07am

    Designate "off limits"?

    If I was Google, I would just sit back, let this happen, and smile. What better way to highlight this mess? They walked in front of the gun that they forced Google to set up. It's poetic justice.

  • On the post: Former Marine Detained, Held For A Month For Posting Conspiracy Theories, Rap Lyrics To Facebook

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2012 @ 05:10pm

    Re: Re: "Conspiracy theories" come in all forms...

    I can tell you struggle with what words mean. The official report is their theory of what happened. The report lays out a conspiracy that those criminals carried out. It is a conspiracy theory.

  • On the post: Former Marine Detained, Held For A Month For Posting Conspiracy Theories, Rap Lyrics To Facebook

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2012 @ 04:54pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Just to clarify here..... Do you know what pseudo means?

  • On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2011 @ 04:05am

    Broken link

    The link to the Addendum is broken. It has an extra quotation mark at the end.

  • On the post: Giant Breweries Get Laws Passed In Wisconsin To Make Life Hard For Small Breweries [Updated]

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2011 @ 01:56am

    Re: Re: already been done across the border

    "Paragraph (18) of subsection (a) of Section 3‑12 of this Act" also guarantees a MINIMUM of 45 days between application and approval of this "exemption", with no stated maximum period. And as stated, this isn't a license they get through normal means, but an exemption to the standard license restrictions.

    Enough bureaucracy to for some to go through the middle men instead. It isn't necessary to ban something when you can just make it worse than the alternative.

  • On the post: NJ Supreme Court Can't Comprehend That Everyone Can Be A Journalist

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2011 @ 01:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not so bad...

    Also, your point about whether or not she WAS doing journalism is pointless. The point is, this IS about the venue. Maybe not completely, as you have pointed out, but why should the venue matter AT ALL?

    Frankly, the extent to which they focused on the venue might lead one to believe it is likely that she WAS doing journalism. Otherwise, why did they have to focus so much on the venue to rule against her?

  • On the post: NJ Supreme Court Can't Comprehend That Everyone Can Be A Journalist

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2011 @ 12:51pm

    Re: qualifications?

    1. No, you don't have to obtain qualifications to be a journalist in America. If the government required that then it wouldn't be a "free" press now, would it?

    2. I am not a doctor. But if I come to your house, inject you with a local anesthetic, and remove what I have diagnosed as a cancerous lump, am I practicing medicine?

    These are the two key points of Mike's post. Anyone in this country can "do journalism", and if you are doing it, YOU'RE DOING IT. The venue doesn't change that fact.

  • On the post: NJ Supreme Court Can't Comprehend That Everyone Can Be A Journalist

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2011 @ 12:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not so bad...

    So if a lawyer, who has identified himself as such, gives you legal advice on a message board, then he isn't practicing law? I think the law disagrees with your logic here.

  • On the post: Yes, Multiple People Come Up With The Same Joke; It's Not 'Stealing' And Not Even Copying

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2011 @ 12:41pm

    example

    Obvious immigration joke:

    "Kick out the Mexicans and build a wall?
    Who's going to build it?"

    And I've seen people claim this joke has been stolen by people.

  • On the post: RIAA: Changing Copyright Term On Recordings Is Unconstitutional (But Only If It's Shorter)

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2011 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: unconstitutional

    My reference stating otherwise is the Tenth Amendment, but the wording isn't clear. It contains two qualifiers, that the powers aren't prohibited to the states AND that they aren't delegated to the federal government (like copyright is). Both conditions must be met for the powers to be reserved to the states. Does "not reserved" mean that both the state and federal get to make laws? That's not how I read it, but I'm not a lawyer (or a judge).

  • On the post: RIAA: Changing Copyright Term On Recordings Is Unconstitutional (But Only If It's Shorter)

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2011 @ 09:47am

    Re: Re: unconstitutional

    Well, either Congress has authority and the state laws are unconstitutional, or federal copyright on sound recordings is unconstitutional. Right?

  • On the post: RIAA: Changing Copyright Term On Recordings Is Unconstitutional (But Only If It's Shorter)

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2011 @ 09:44am

    Re: Re: unconstitutional

    Oh wait, you seem confused on the question. You are trying to explain why the state laws didn't violate federal law, right? I asking how they don't violate the Tenth Amendment.

  • On the post: RIAA: Changing Copyright Term On Recordings Is Unconstitutional (But Only If It's Shorter)

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2011 @ 09:41am

    Re: Re: unconstitutional

    No, that doesn't explain it. The copyright clause makes no such distinction.

  • On the post: RIAA: Changing Copyright Term On Recordings Is Unconstitutional (But Only If It's Shorter)

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 06 Jun, 2011 @ 06:32am

    unconstitutional

    Why aren't those state laws themselves unconstitutional? That power was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

  • On the post: Smartphones Make People Ignore Commercials Way More Than DVRs

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 27 May, 2011 @ 03:04am

    Re: "Crazy low"?

    My bad for the duplicate post, accidentally clicked "back" to the "comment submitted" page. :)

  • On the post: Smartphones Make People Ignore Commercials Way More Than DVRs

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 27 May, 2011 @ 02:39am

    "Crazy low"?

    I don't think I'd call 2% "crazy low" for several reasons. Think about it. Primarily, you would have to doubt the numbers on DVR ownership and time-shifting. Even if we raise the fast-forward rate to (an unreasonable) 100%, we would still only be at 3.5%. Now consider that everyone has been conditioned to be used to commercials for decades, and that they have turned their attention away as much as possible for quite a while. (Getting a snack, moving clothes from the washer to dryer, whatever.) Now factor in those people who would rather check their smart phones than fast-forward through commercial breaks. Or, if watching something with friends, talk to them about the show or just about life in general in that "free time". Many people still check other channels on commercial breaks. The one glaring flaw in that stat is that it assumes a DVR owner who time-shifts isn't watching any more TV than the rest, which I will just assume is wrong. But even factoring that in, I still don't think 2% is "crazy low".

  • On the post: Smartphones Make People Ignore Commercials Way More Than DVRs

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 27 May, 2011 @ 02:27am

    "Crazy low"?

    I don't think I'd call 2% "crazy low" for several reasons. Think about it. Primarily, you would have to doubt the numbers on DVR ownership and time-shifting. Even if we raise the fast-forward rate to (an unreasonable) 100%, we would still only be at 3.5%. Now consider that everyone has been conditioned to be used to commercials for decades, and that they have turned their attention away as much as possible for quite a while. (Getting a snack, moving clothes from the washer to dryer, whatever.) Now factor in those people who would rather check their smart phones than fast-forward through commercial breaks. Or, if watching something with friends, talk to them about the show or just about life in general in that "free time". Many people still check other channels on commercial breaks. The one glaring flaw in that stat is that it assumes a DVR owner who time-shifts isn't watching any more TV than the rest, which I will just assume is wrong. But even factoring that in, I still don't think 2% is "crazy low".

  • On the post: An Open Letter To Sony CEO Howard Stringer

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 24 May, 2011 @ 02:16am

    Re: Re: PS+

    Apparently it wasn't clear, but I was specifically NOT talking about those games (of which there are actually 5). That's what I was getting at with "free games (on PS+, not the "Welcome back" ones)".

  • On the post: An Open Letter To Sony CEO Howard Stringer

    Travis Miller ( profile ), 23 May, 2011 @ 10:20am

    PS+

    I've seen way too much discussion recently of whether or not Playstation Plus is worth it, usually brought on by the mention of this free month now being offered.

    Every time I see mention of free games (on PS+, not the "Welcome back" ones) no one ever mentions that you lose them if you don't pay to keep PS+. This makes the free month pretty much useless to most. It's still better that nothing, but not by as much as some are acting.

    And I'm saying this as a current PS+ subscriber.

Next >>