Violynne’s Techdirt Profile


About ViolynneTechdirt Insider

Violynne’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 2nd, 2015 @ 9:00am

    (untitled comment)

    Every person in Oregon who possesses a screwdriver should be arrested, based on that ridiculous law.

    Crowell should be disbarred.

  • Sep 2nd, 2015 @ 3:02am

    (untitled comment)

    Dianne Feinstein,

    A job opportunity for you has just presented itself. It's everything you want! Surveillance! Control! No pesky US Constitution to interfere!

    Don't miss this chance!

  • Sep 1st, 2015 @ 8:55am

    Re: Re:

    speed versus data consumption is irrelevant
    Your entire article is based on this misinformation you're trying to pass to your readers, but I'm not going to fall for your inept understanding of data.

    Since you seem to only think points are made by definitions, here's one for "Data":

    1. a plural of datum.

    2. (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items of information.

    3. (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information.

    Note the exclusion of anything related to speed, distance, time, warp drives, or anything else you'll read into the actual defined word of "data".

    T-Mobile makes two things clear:
    -Unlimited data is unlimited data.
    -You get 4G/LTE speeds up to [allotment] but will be slowed if the allotment FOR THAT SPEED is crossed.

    Your argument will ONLY be valid if:
    -There's an additional cost to access the data once allotment is exceeded

    -The device stops working completely if the allotment is exceeded

    -If the ad specified "Unlimited Access" or "Unlimited Speed" as opposed to "Unlimited Data"

    T-Mobile does no such things, as far as I'm aware.

    If you want to sit and try to convince your readers the majority of people reading the article are stupid to conflate speed with data, that's your call.

    But don't call out a company whose 100% straight forward with its customers who do know the difference between data and speed.

  • Sep 1st, 2015 @ 6:47am

    (untitled comment)

    That said, acting like it's the pinnacle of "clever hacking" and villainy to modify a device you own to get a service advertised as unlimited is a tad specious and theatrical.

    What you claim is a defense by the carries is actually a valid response.

    T-Mobile, by the way, makes it very clear you can have all the data you want, but if your 4G/LTE speed is used to grab the plentiful allocation, you will be slowed down but you will still have access to the data.

    There's nothing nefarious about this. It's clear. Customers understand it. Customers accept it.

    As far as I'm concerned, I see no problem with T-Mobile going after these users, because chances are, they're the bots we all hate sending out spam texts everyone gets.

    If a few "customers" come along and take more than they're alloted, it ruins it for the rest of us.

    Because, unlike broadband, LTE does have a limited throughput and I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want a spinning icon as my phone is trying to send and receive data because "customers", by your definition, can work around and tether all the LTE speed for themselves.

    This article boasts a ridiculous attitude, and the opening definition of "unlimited" was a kick below the belt not only in its tone, but based on the perception "speed = data".

    Guess who's going to get the negative feedback based on the article? Psst: it's not T-Mobile.

  • Aug 31st, 2015 @ 12:24pm

    (untitled comment)

    If I'm reading this correctly, what the article is stating is the New York Times started the whole clickbait revolution.


  • Aug 31st, 2015 @ 11:45am

    (untitled comment)

    I remember a day when retailers, not distributors, had the power to call the shots.

    Not sure when the balance of power changed hands, but retailers, as well as online venues, need to stand up against this crap.

    Let the (representing) MPAA try selling its good without the retailers and see how far it takes them.

  • Aug 25th, 2015 @ 12:00pm

    (untitled comment)

    Went from "Don't Be Evil" to "We Were Never Here".

  • Aug 25th, 2015 @ 6:45am

    (untitled comment)

    "You're gaining a little weight there, kid. You should work on that."
    "How do you know what I weight?"

    "Because I can see you, silly. Look at you. Pudgy and filled with nothing but junk food."
    "It's amazing you found the time to take your eyes of Candy Crush."

    "Will you two shut the hell up already! Trying to watch 'Lord of the Rings' here."


    Sometimes, coming home isn't fun. In the olden days, it was listening to kids fighting. Now, it's my goddamn appliances giving me hell.

    I'm starting to understand the rants of old people now.

  • Aug 24th, 2015 @ 11:56am

    (untitled comment)

    No dice. We already tried this several years ago with Google pretty much telling us since we bring them no financial revenue to go pound sand.

    Google's "policy" is to cater those who pay the ad bills.

    Everyone else are mindless drone who have no voice in what Google does.

  • Aug 24th, 2015 @ 9:19am

    (untitled comment)

    Dear upcoming artists reading this article,

    What you're actually reading are the states caused by these performers and their record labels.

    In a time before royalties (and it took a new copyright law to get them, by the way), these performers had no choice but to trust their labels, many of which withheld thousands, if not millions, from the artists which actually created the music.

    Their suffering had nothing to do with people stealing their music (trying to walk out with an LP tucked under the shirt isn't easy).

    Their suffering was due to lost revenue by the labels, most represented by the RIAA (whose sole purpose is to extort as much money from artists as possible).

    Don't fall for the ruse. Take a few months and learn business, economics, and the law so you can manage, market, and profit by yourself.

    Because the second you take that advance and sign the dotted line, you'll be hitting the bottle and pain killers too.

  • Aug 20th, 2015 @ 7:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not on consoles. I have never had a used game by EA or Ubisoft fail to work from a used game.

    While I'll admit they do try to get me to "sign up" for their "service", I decline.

    Also, the "FTFY" is dead wrong. EA and Ubisoft clearly have no intention of changing their ways and gamers are still buying the games.

    There's no denying EA and Ubisoft still make good games. That would be lying. What's important to realize here is how we obtain those games, and buying second-hand is not piracy.

    Wait. Just noted your username. You're toying with us, aren't you Daedric Prince of Madness.

  • Aug 20th, 2015 @ 3:18am

    (untitled comment)

    During the first quarter of this year, "extra content" generated roughly $921 million out of EA’s total digital revenue of $2.2 billion, meaning there are plenty of people who now either think DLC offers a great value position or have more disposable income than brains.
    This is precisely why Techdirt will be writing about EA for many, many years to come. Job security for Karl and Tim (or is it Timothy, can never remember).

    I personally ignore 99.7% of all DLC.
    Ditto. As it stands, the only company which gets my money for its DLC is (Zenimax) Bethesda, currently my favorite game studio.

    I didn't mind one bit paying $20 for a virtual clouded leopard mount for Elder Scrolls Online (after buying two house cats and another lioness). This game gives me such a fantastic good time, I actually feel guilty I don't subscribe (a requirement dropped by Zenimax pre-console launch).

    $70 for a game that clearly gives so much more than pretty much any other title out there (not yet played Witcher 3, which I heard was huge) that I'm hoping this plan doesn't backfire because we have idiotic gamers who want it all but want to pay nothing for it.

    As for Ubisoft and EA, I don't buy any of their games direct. If I want it, I'll head to Gamestop where they get the money and I get the game, screwing EA and Ubisoft both.

    It's not a coincidence small publishers are making big waves.

    Oh, yeah, and a plug: Submerged is a really great game for $20. You can finish it in a day, but it's gorgeous and fun to play. Recommended.

    Why the plug? small publisher. ;)

  • Aug 19th, 2015 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re:

    The conflation between ABI and API is persistent.

    ABIs do not have functions.

    The role of an ABI is to translate the compiled API's machine code and submit and receive the values returned by the chip.

    The compiler is what translates the API into the register code expected by the ABI, which then processes the machine code.

    This is why every language has keywords. Those keywords are then converted to machine code, which tells the ABI how to process the code.

    This isn't hard to follow.

    What it looks like people are confusing is the fact APIs can be transferred between software, necessitating their "need" and shouldn't be copyright. Or perhaps they're limiting API to "1+1=2", which means this "function" isn't copyright.

    Either argument is wrong. While I certainly agree "1+1=2" shouldn't be copyright, this isn't the issue.

    A statement isn't a function.

    Which is why any programmer can write their own API (and have it covered by copyright, like it or not).

  • Aug 19th, 2015 @ 4:07am

    (untitled comment)

    ...these non-programmers don't realize that an API is not software.
    Sorry, but this is not accurate at all and I'm getting tired of people making the mistake.

    First, let's the get the obvious out of the way. The "P" in "API" stands for "Programming", which means software.

    Second, people are conflating API with ABI and it's ABI (Application Binary Interface) that cannot be covered by copyright.

    All APIs are written in software. No, they are not a program, but they work with programs. They are the fundamental structures which allows programmers to code
    for the specific operating system the APIs were written for.

    This is why Apple, Microsoft, Linux, Java, and now Android, have their own set of APIs, despite all of them having the ability to work on the same system.

    By Google's admission, it took the APIs from Java to work with Android. Google did not write the APIs for Android.By doing this, Android and Java are now completely different operating systems using identical APIs.

    What this means: if Google wrote their own APIs and the functions of the APIs are identical to those of Java, there is no copyright protection because the result of the API is the ABI.

    It's why software has compilers.

    API: program aka software aka copyright covered.
    ABI: compiled API aka system code aka not covered by copyright.

    This isn't even an issue of "but, but ... they're the same!" No, they are not the same and continue making this claim, and we'll eventually see the results of how companies will eventually push to have ABIs covered, and we do not want this.

    If you need additional education, I recommend you read this:
    (first example I pulled, but you can read up on any of them from AMD, Intel, or Qualcomm).

  • Aug 17th, 2015 @ 8:25am

    (untitled comment)

    Repeatedly we've been told by ISP lobbyists and lawyers that if ISPs don't get "X" (no net neutrality rules, deregulation, more subsidies, the right to impose arbitrary new tolls, whatever), the Internet will choke on itself and grind to a halt
    This is true, though.

    Let me rewrite this so it makes it clear:
    "Repeatedly, we've been threatened by ISP lobbyists and lawyers that if ISPs don't get 'X' (no net neutrality rules, deregulation, more subsidies, the right to impose arbitrary new tolls, whatever), the ISP will choke the Internet by itself and grind it to a halt."

    Amazing how a few simple changes to wording can make a claim a reality.

  • Aug 13th, 2015 @ 8:59am

    (untitled comment)

    The anagram for "Lenovo" is "No Love".

    It's the corporation's secret motto.

  • Aug 12th, 2015 @ 6:16am

    (untitled comment)

    Dammit! Forgot to close the bold tag. Will we ever get an edit option? *sigh*

  • Aug 12th, 2015 @ 6:15am

    (untitled comment)

    "This is a classic example of how some people fear new technology so they reactively reject it instead of accepting it, no matter how irrational that fear may be,"

    Yep, Verizon is out of touch.

    Clearly the people of New Jersey are only following the lead as displayed by the MPAA, RIAA, every other gatekeeper, copyright, patent, and DRM supporters.

  • Aug 11th, 2015 @ 7:16am

    (untitled comment)

    Oracle: "I'm sorry, Neo, but you are not the one to challenge our Matrix."
    Neo: "But I chased the white rabbit."

    Oracle: "Let the agents do their thing. Here, have a cookie."
    Neo: "But there is no cookie."

    Oracle: "Now you're getting it."
    Neo: "Guess there's nothing to do now but stare at the woman in the red dress."

  • Aug 10th, 2015 @ 11:00am

    (untitled comment)

    Vimeo, like all video streaming sites, should take all the blame.

    Rather than stand up against what's clearly now abuse of the law, they buckle and "comply", leaving its users to fend for themselves.

    If these sites are worried about lawsuits, then they should allow them.

    If every gatekeeper tried to sue every site which refuses to comply with the DMCA, they'd go bankrupt pretty quick.

More comments from Violynne >>