The most insightful comment this week was another clear winner. (Second place was way, way behind.) It was a comment from an Anonymous Coward, in response to the claims from the NSA that Anonymous was somehow likely to target taking down power grids. This AC gave a good reason for that to be unlikely
Let's go the other way, why would Anon, who uses computers which require power, shut down their power source?
Coming in second was Richard's
comment in response to my suggestion that all
laws should have a sunset period at which point they need to be reviewed before they could be renewed. As Richard notes, this might have a side benefit
If it did nothing else this would limit the amount of time available for making new laws!
For editor's choice, we've got Chosen Reject
explaining how he deals with the fact that certain "inventors" aren't
My hobby: Every time someone says "Edison invented..." I mentally replace "invented" with "was somehow involved in patenting".
For the second editor's choice, I'll go with TasMot's
comment on the NSA/Anonymous hacking the power grid story, which gets to the real heart of the matter
Before chasing after the group Anonymous, let's put the idiots in jail that put the On/Off switch for the Power Grid on the Internet. I mean how stupid was that? Does somebody working at the power company need to get on a web page from home and turn off the power grid?
Why doesn't NSA actually look into what parts of the power grid can be accessed from the Internet and go "fix" that? Oh Yeah, I forgot, you can't take away any civil liberties if you do that........ You just fix the problem and move on..... And besides, that would make more sense.
Moving on to funny, we had three
comments very closely clumped together at the top... and then there was a huge
gap from them to number four. So, rather than leave out that "third" comment, let's just list out all three of those comments. Amusingly, the top-voted funniest comment... is actually a response to the most insightful of the week
! Never seen that before. It's also by an Anonymous Coward (though a different one) responding to that claim of Anonymous supposedly not wanting to take down power plants because they'd lose power... and then mimicking
the bizarre two sentences we quote from the article about how Anonymous can't take down the power grid, but "experts" feared that if they did then that would increase the likelihood that a power grid would be taken down:
Anonymous doesn't yet have the capability to run computers without a power source, officials say. But if the group's members around the world developed or acquired it, an attack on the power grid would become far more likely, according to cybersecurity experts who spend their time giving stupid quotes for stupid articles.
The next two were both on the story about Techdirt being filtered out for kids in Germany as being harmful to minors. First we had someone going by the name "TD regular guess who" noting
Yeah, but we just go there for the articles.
Then we had yet another Anonymous Coward explaining
In other news, Techdirt readership among German youths is up 42%.
Of course, some of those looking for freaky German porn were notably confused.
I will admit that I was really, really tempted to make my editor's choice comment this hater's comment
because it really is amazingly funny and gets funnier and more ridiculous the further you read (summary: it argues that I'm a total idiot, and to make my life miserable, this amazing individual might "buy" this blog just to make me suffer -- I should probably just send him our starting price
), but I thought that might just be funny to me. So, instead, we'll go with yet another Anonymous Coward comment, explaining how Universal Music withholding millions
from Eminem royalties to pay for Eminem's lawsuit against Universal Music made sense:
What's the problem with charging the artist for legal fees you incur defending against lawsuits filed by the artist for not paying the artist?
Lets compare this to a similar situation, to show Universal Music's point.
-Universal Music hires you as an employee paid at the end of each month, with a $120,000 dollars a year salary.
-At the end of the month Universal Music pays you only $4,000 before taxes, not the $10,000 you were expecting, so you sue Universal Music.
-As the lawsuit continues you continue working for Universal music for an entire year, getting paid $4,000 dollars each month
-You win an expensive lawsuit against Universal Music, so Universal Music gives you an accounting statement saying you're owed $72,000 in back salary. But Universal's statement also says it cost them $60,000 to defend against your lawsuit (and that's not counting the $20,000 you spent on your own lawyer in that lawsuit), so Universal writes you a check for $12,000 and calls it even.
You see, perfectly reasonable of Universal Music! It's also a darn convenient way to get around pesky minimum wage laws, thanks to a little bit of creativity. Creativity is good! If we punish Universal Music for their creativity then the artists Universal Music represents won't be motivated to create new music!
And now that we know the secret business model, I'll leave you and get ready for the upcoming week...