The Super-Early Holiday Gear Sale (Plus Our New Math Is Not A Crime T-Shirt!)

from the last-chance-in-2016 dept

Last chance this year to get Nerd Harder, Takedown, and more Techdirt gear! »

Yes, that’s right — it’s a September holiday sale! We know it takes some time for your orders to arrive from Teespring, so we’re leaving a nice big window for those of you who want to gift some Techdirt gear in December. All our past shirts — plus one brand new design — are available from now until October 3rd.

This is the last time we’re offering any of this gear in 2016, and we won’t be taking reservations once these campaigns close! Most of the shirts will come back eventually, but we can’t promise when and it might be a year or more. Also, Nerd Harder is now available on hoodies, mugs and stickers for the first time.

As for the Vote2016() gear, this is your last chance ever! Order it now and you’ll get it just in time for election month!

Remember, you’ve only got three weeks from today to place your orders, and everything will ship with plenty of time for the holidays. As usual, t-shirts are $20, hoodies are $35, mugs are $14 and stickers are only $4 — though not all designs are available on all products! Hurry up and get your gear before it’s too late.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Super-Early Holiday Gear Sale (Plus Our New Math Is Not A Crime T-Shirt!)”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
32 Comments
Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s predominantly about the current debate around encryption for the public, since encryption is just math – but the government wants to legislate limits and backdoors. Though it has applied to IP situations in the past, when encryption for copy protection has been broken which, thanks to the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions, has created situations in which a mere number is illegal to publish.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I appreciate the explanation. Thanks! That went over my head.

It’s curious that you compare an “encryption for copy protection” to a “mere number.” If I have your Social Security number (or equivalent, if you’re not American), should I be allowed to publish and use that “mere number” however I want? It’s just a number, after all. If not, what’s the difference?

Thanks again!

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

As I understand it, there is no law against knowing or sharing someone’s SSN. Indeed, there shouldn’t be any danger inherent in anyone knowing your SSN, since that’s a pretty abysmal security system – it’s only dangerous because many organizations treat it as a piece of authenticating data, even though they really shouldn’t, any more than they should your mother’s maiden name.

Now, if you use that social security number to do something like commit fraud, then you have broken the law. But outlawing the number itself is just silly.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

As I understand it, there is no law against knowing or sharing someone’s SSN.

Of course there are laws against this. Lots of laws. For example, “[A] person shall not . . . Intentionally communicate another individual’s social security number to the general public[.]” Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-443.2.

Indeed, there shouldn’t be any danger inherent in anyone knowing your SSN, since that’s a pretty abysmal security system – it’s only dangerous because many organizations treat it as a piece of authenticating data, even though they really shouldn’t, any more than they should your mother’s maiden name.

Yes, it is dangerous, whether you think it should be or not. That’s why there are so many laws against it!

Now, if you use that social security number to do something like commit fraud, then you have broken the law. But outlawing the number itself is just silly.

So given the fact that it is dangerous, I don’t understand why you think it’s “silly” to have laws against revealing other people’s SSNs. To me, it’s “silly” to say it’s just a number. It’s not. The reason so many lawmakers think SSNs are important to protect is because they are more than just some random number.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Of course there are laws against this. Lots of laws. For example, “[A] person shall not . . . Intentionally communicate another individual’s social security number to the general public[.]” Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-443.2.

As far as I can tell, less then half of all the states have such a law. And it’s a stupid law. Indeed, all the laws regarding SSN use and privacy form nothing more than a sad patchwork attempt to shore up utterly useless security. The idea that your entire identity is guarded solely by a single password which is difficult to change and which you must hand over in plaintext to dozens of different companies and agencies over the course of your life is… idiotic.

Many companies and agencies use your mother’s maiden name as a piece of identifying data too – my bank sometimes seems to accept just that & my birthdate as confirmation that they are talking to me. So… should publishing someone’s mother’s maiden name and birthdate be illegal, too? After all, it can be “dangerous” for that information to be out there…

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

(as for comparing the breaking of copy protection to a mere number, that’s because in the cases I’m referring to it literally was. AACS encryption was broken and the cryptographic key became public knowledge. It was in hexidecimal: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

For a while, websites that so much as printed that number started receiving cease & desist orders from the MPAA. Digg.com removed a bunch of articles and started banning people who mentioned it in a comment.

A simple number 128-bit number had become illegal.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The Social security system is a joke. It’s not very secure at all, perhaps social ‘security’ is a misnomer.

I think everyone should have a public/private key pair. The only person that knows my private key should be … me, not even the government should know it.

But anyone can know my public key and I can use my private key to verify my identity.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

If your security relies on keeping a single number secret, and then that number leaks, expecting the government to step in and clamp down on massive amounts of speech and essentially outlaw the mere knowledge of a few digits is both stupid and unjust.

If my password leaks, I change it unless I’m a moron. If my password leaks after I’ve already shipped millions of units of something-or-other that is supposed to be perfectly protected by that now-unchangeable password, I was a moron all along.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I think we were pretty clear.

This is the very last time we’ll be offering the Vote2016() shirt. And the very last time this year that we’ll be offering any of the other shirts.

Shirts, by the way, are not artificially scarce.

[This comment posted for the benefit of anyone else who might not have been clear on our plan for these shirts – not for the jackass who will find something to whine about regardless of any and all factors.]

Whatever (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I have told you before, I just don’t have the time. I can get them turned out as cheap as chips, good quality shorts (beefy Ts or Gildans) but it takes time and I don’t really have it.

if you want to pre-order a bunch (say like 100 or more) I will gladly process the order. FOB my town, by the way, so prepare to pay shipping and the boat might take a while to get there…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I have told you before, I just don’t have the time. I can get them turned out as cheap as chips, good quality shorts (beefy Ts or Gildans) but it takes time and I don’t really have it.”

You really are an idiot.

Time = money.

Your argument is like saying I can mow your lawn for free but I don’t really have the time. But mowing your lawn is really really cheap, especially if you provide the equipment. But my time …

Well, duh. You are an idiot, do you know how stupid you sound? Time is part of what is being paid for.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“if you want to pre-order a bunch (say like 100 or more) I will gladly process the order. FOB my town, by the way, so prepare to pay shipping and the boat might take a while to get there…”

You are finally getting it. Techdirt mass produces them so they can do them for cheaper. They provide their blog for free and they sell a scarce good, the T-Shirt. They mass produce/order the shirt so they can get/make it for cheaper. It’s hard for you to compete because almost no one wants to buy the shirt from you so you could only sell small quantities of it. Therefore your costs will be more and Techdirt wins by selling what’s scarce and giving away what’s free.

Very good!!!

Whatever says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Leigh, uh, no, sorry.

I have other work in life, I don’t have time to knock out t-shirts as a one off. You guys outsourced it to a company that will only do runs if you push enough (hence the repeated begging for buyers, otherwise you won’t hit the goal and nobody will get them).

I can produce them locally (it’s pretty easy) but slightly time consuming. I don’t want to spend the time just to prove you wrong. The t-shirts aren’t scarce, the printing on the t-shirts isn’t scarce, and they aren’t particularly special. Artificial scarcity is created by saying “limited time” or “get them before they are gone” when in fact, they are not scarce at all.

If someone wants to order 100 (mixed sizes) I will gladly process an order for them and run the shirts. It’s not a big deal. Given distribution, I could run tens of thousands of them. Doesn’t matter. The point is that they are not scarce, except if you try to put artificial limits on them (won’t do this again!).

If you want to send me the money, I am sure I can knock you out a special shirt, girls small should fit you nicely.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Even if you spend the time ‘just to prove them wrong’ that still doesn’t prove them wrong. You haven’t proven that

A: It would be profitable to you (considering the cost of your time and not just the raw material cost).

B: It would significantly cut into Techdirt’s sales even if it were profitable to you.

If anything your comments have proven just the opposite. But instead of admitting to it you choose to double down on your stupidity.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...