Ben’s Techdirt Profile

benbishop61

About Ben




Ben’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 4th, 2018 @ 5:10pm

    Re: So Far, So Biologically Correct ...

    But!

    Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga,
    Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga,
    Oh, the monkeys have no tails,
    They were bitten off by whales,
    Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga.

  • Aug 17th, 2018 @ 4:57pm

    Re: Oh my

    You just had to link to XKCD didn't you? That's a half hour I'll never get back... saved only by the need to get up from my computer so I could stop looking at random pages.

    You evil evil mugwump you!

  • Aug 1st, 2018 @ 9:12am

    Re:

    This incident happened in 2016. The Turner case started in 2015. The Turner case was decided in 2017, which implies that the right existed in 2015 (since the ruling was that Turner had the right to film the officers) albeit stipulated in 2017.

    I find the dismissal of this case just stunning.

  • May 17th, 2018 @ 1:00pm

    Judicial push back?

    "The FBI is in no hurry to make this information public, so it will probably take a lawsuit to get its response rolling."

    When that lawsuit is presented to a judge, there should be a question of what plausible reason there could be to not release the count and how it was achieved. They should then be slapped down/fined/whatever to point out that they are wasting the time of the judicial branch by not following the FOIA law, which is rather hypocritical of the Department of Justice

  • Apr 13th, 2018 @ 11:09am

    Re:

    ex post facto law definition

    A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier


    A law that removes penalties after the fact does not qualify as prohibited.

  • Apr 13th, 2018 @ 9:54am

    (untitled comment)

    How can this be valid/constitutional?

    Wouldn't that be the definition of applying the law ex post facto? Backpage was taken down before the law was signed.

  • Feb 1st, 2018 @ 4:36pm

    Re: I guess it is time to publicize their browsing habits.

    Since the computers are public property, the browsing history of every computer owned by the states should be posted on a regular basis, maybe once a month. That should allow the automatic removal of sites which are somehow considered "privileged" (by whatever metric).

    Machine (MAC? IP address?), date time, and URL would be all that is needed. A FOIA-equivalent request would then be able to link the Machine to a location if something untoward was noticed (why was the chief of police's computer connecting to porntube.com?)

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: "5 TB of data in a month should not place an undue burden on a fiber network" -- ONE won't, sure.

    You seem to be as usual making "net neutrality" mean only what you want it to (ISPs having infinite bandwidth), not what's practical in light of capacity and local drives.

    No, I expect "net neutrality" to mean exactly what it is supposed to mean: neutrality to the content. That is all it has ever been. There are other issues with regulation of local ISPs which are either monopolies or duopolies for the last mile connections to the customers, but that isn't part of "net neutrality" (btw: why the quotes? that is its name)

    Saturation is a capacity issue that the customer shouldn't have to worry about. If the ISP is selling me a 50 MB pipe, they should be able to have all their customers able to use their pipes while I'm using the capacity I (and all the other customers) paid for. There is no subsidy. Just like every other system (power distribution comes to mind) they plan their capacity on expected usage; if that usage increases (e.g. when more and more people discover the delights of Netflix), then they have to invest in infrastructure. Fortunately, they should have all that money we've been paying to help them do that.

    If an ISP sets up a content distribution/caching system for something like Netflix (in order to cut down on internet backbone usage) more power to them; they know the numbers and if the cost of setting up the CDS is cheaper than the haul fees for Level 3/whatever, then that is a business decision. I don't even see how that touches on the real meaning of Net Neutrality.

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 8:27am

    Re:

    So if my next door neighbor uses 5 TB of data a month, and I use 100 MB a month, why should it be illegal for our ISP to charge him more than me, or even slow his down so my internet isn't at a crawl?

    That is not net neutrality. Net neutrality has nothing to do with the price an ISP charges you (or your neighbor) for the line (and data) going to your house.

    Net neutrality deals with the content that those lines carry. If your neighbor watches Netflix while you watch YouTube (or vice versa) the ISP is not allowed to tweak the delivery so Netflix comes out smooth in HD because the ISP is getting paid extra by Netflix.

    Net Neutrality is about being neutral to the content, be it video vs text vs sound, or source, be it Amazon vs YouTube vs Netflix vs Bob's video emporium.

    5 TB of data in a month should not place an undue burden on a fiber network, but if the ISP wants to charge extra that is their right subject to the regulatory controls they operate under (contracts and state oversight if any).

    If both you and your neighbor purchased a 50 MB broadband connection and you only use 100 MB a month and they used 5 TB -- what is your complaint? you are both limited to the same 50 MB speed, they are just using it all the time.

    (50MB/s x 3600s/hr x 24hr/day x 30day = 129,600,000 MB = 129 TB possible per month, and you're complaining about them using 5???)

  • Jan 9th, 2018 @ 7:08am

    Re: Re: Book scanning writ large

    In the modern era, yes, all the data/memos would be on servers, so getting rid of it is much easier than in the past (and easier to explain away -- oh! that project ended so we decommissioned the server with a sledgehammer...)

    The issue is the so-called "paperless office." The reality is people still print things out -- it is just that they can re-print it at need. That is what they have shredding parties for.

  • Jan 8th, 2018 @ 11:53pm

    Book scanning writ large

    In Vernor Vinge's Rainbow's End there was a (somewhat) horrifying mechanism for scanning books: toss the books in a shredder and while the shredded pieces are floating down an air-filled channel they are photographed and then digitally reassembled. It certainly gets away from having to carefully scan each piece; I just wonder if the technique would require the re-shredding (further shredding?) of the Stasi papers to deal with the less than uniform existing pieces.

    Once a workable solution is found, however, this will have very big implications for the SEC and FBI trying to recover documents after corporate shredding parties.

  • Dec 29th, 2017 @ 9:34am

    (untitled comment)

    It's a solid win for Hawaiian citizens and another favorable court opinion to be cited in upcoming courtroom battles

    Is it really? How much did it cost the reporter's side to fight this? How much did the citizens of Hawaii pay for defending what amounts to a stupid arrest? The win may be solid, but the road to get there was a little too mushy for my taste.

  • Dec 19th, 2017 @ 7:24am

    Re:

    No, the corresponding analogy is that a law gets passed decriminalizing heroin. The law doesn't officially take effect for 90+ days but the day after it gets signed they're saying "Look! Legal Heroin hasn't killed anyone!"

    The FCC keeps talking about "before 2015" as if it were the golden age of the internet. The reason the NN rules were added was because of what the ISPs demonstrated they were willing to do, in a hope of cutting them off before they went too far. If the reversion holds, this does not bode well.

  • Dec 18th, 2017 @ 3:08pm

    And he gives them a PIN...

    ...and it is the wrong PIN. Oops -- that is to my other phone. Try this one... and it is again, the wrong PIN. At which point will they believe any PIN he gives them (if three failures wipe the phone)?

    I really don't understand the court's logic. It is compelled speech which will incriminate him. That is the definition of a 5th amendment violation.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 1:52pm

    Re: Interesting point of view...

    I think that is called "The Disney Perspective"

  • Dec 5th, 2017 @ 10:00pm

    (untitled comment)

    Personally I dislike the taste of beer.

    I'd like to try that spiced honey-mead wine. I could really get into that (unless it results in the Pit of Misery).

    Well played Budweiser. Well played. Dilly Dilly!

  • Nov 13th, 2017 @ 12:36pm

    Re:

    However, those people are only entitled to the amount of money they put into the Ponzi scheme, so any profit is claimable to make the other investors/victims "whole".

    So, those people who did well and retired/exited before the whole show fell apart should not get to keep their winnings in the hope that it will at least return some restitution to others.

  • Nov 9th, 2017 @ 4:32am

    Re: Re: Re: The brave boys in blue

    The "traditional" carrier of rabies is a bat, so I feel rather certain that squirrels can also be worrisome.

    I remember starting treatment for rabies after being bitten by a dog in the 60's as a precaution until the dog was identified as not having rabies. It was not pleasant but there was a treatment.

  • Nov 8th, 2017 @ 9:47pm

    Re: The brave boys in blue

    Ummm. If the dog was rabid, i.e. it showed all the symptoms of having rabies, I would hope the police officer would shoot it. Rabid animals are dangerous even 12 pound ones. Even rabid squirrels are dangerous.

    Granted there is a treatment for rabies, but it takes weeks.

  • Oct 27th, 2017 @ 12:38pm

    Censoring?

    I found it odd that throughout the video they are beeping out various "bad" words (e.g. *beep* used to describe the oil companies arranging to pillage the bight)

    ... but the video ends with "Great Australian Bight, Home to our next great fuck-up" without any *beep*.

    Is that intentional? Or just their own fuck-up? I suspect intentional.

More comments from Ben >>