Ehud Gavron’s Techdirt Profile

gavron

About Ehud GavronTechdirt Insider




Ehud Gavron’s Comments comment rss

  • May 18th, 2017 @ 3:23am

    Re: Re: Techdirt defends site it admits infringes copyright. At what point are you going to quit sticking up for criminals?

    I'm definitely sexually arouses by your being wrong.

    I haven't had a chance to chat with disconnected personalities since Artie Ziff weighed in on Scorpion -- the TV show -- not the man.

    Please do share with us how your disconnected self blames TechDirt for why your doctors told you you are no longer allowed to drive... why your kids won't come see you... why your beard gets longer every day but shaving is such a chore... and why Donald Trump is not an idiot.

    What was it you were diagnosed with exactly? Naming the condition is the first step to being able to properly respond and treat it.

    Best regards to all three of your personas.

    Ehud

  • May 17th, 2017 @ 8:18pm

    Injunctive relief

    Injunctive relief should only be granted in those special cases where there may be damages that cannot be mitigated.

    "Cannot be mitigated" (my words, IANAL) means that no amount of post-damages moneys or other things can make up for it.

    An example of an injunction request would be: "If we don't enjoin the bureau of prisons from killing Johnny for his bad crimes, we can never make up for it afterward."

    An example of an injunction request that details something that money could fix is "If you don't stop them from selling these fake Superbowl shirts, we won't sell our shirts, and we'll lose the $50,000 license fee and the $450,000 proceeds we expected to raise from that investment." This can clearly be resolved with money.

    Worse yet, damages have to be proven to a threshold, and that's not "your honor, these people did it in the past[not admissible] and they'll do it again[speculation] and we could lose A LOT of money."

    Inunctive relief is used by the little guy to stop a gross injustice, or by large bullies. In this case, we see the latter.

    Ehud

  • May 10th, 2017 @ 6:35am

    WashPo reader comments

    These comments are beginning to devolve into a WashPo looking set of political discussions that are no longer related to the original TD post.

    That's my observation.

    E

  • May 10th, 2017 @ 2:03am

    Shiva - inventor of inapposite case citation

    He was the first, and his lawyers took his advice (UPL?) and filed it. Nobody before him cited a case so inapposite to his stated position.

    If there weren't so much riding on this I'd get out the popcorn. Instead I'm saving up my popcorn money and contributing to TD's support as I can.

    We're with you guys in spirit. When this is all over we'll be with you in spirits!

    Ehud

  • May 9th, 2017 @ 7:23pm

    The future does not affect the past

    Firing Comey TODAY absolutely has no effect on what he did in the past. The people who think Comey influenced the election are just as right/wrong and what he did doesn't change back in the past based on what Trump did today.

    But I like the way you think. You should go watch Memento or Benjamin Button or Merlin and enjoy, because real life is not like that.

    E

  • May 9th, 2017 @ 5:05pm

    Let's say there was a REALLY BAD MAN in history

    ...and at the time you could replace this REALLY BAD MAN, you can say "A bird in the hand..." or "Better the devil we know..." but having 20/20 hindsight we know that replacing this REALLY BAD MAN before he did REALLY BAD THINGS would have made for a better VERY-BAD-WORLD-THING place.

    So is Comey that bad of a man? When it comes to his views on going dark he sure is. When it comes to lying before Congress and affecting the nationwide vote for POTUS he is. How much worse can the head of the FBI be.

    I'm all for replacing him... but like Uriel-238 I am sure I won't like Trump doing it.

    Ehud
    With kudos to EFF's Counsel MG and his oft-misstated statistical observation about Usenet.

  • May 9th, 2017 @ 4:36pm

    Comey was all against encryption as a matter of national policy

    The removal of encryption from our available security arsenal would be disastrous to tech. Comey was all about that.

    This is *definitely* tech, and not just "hey look, electronic squirrel" but rather a big change in the fighters against encryption as an available option.

    E

  • May 9th, 2017 @ 3:40pm

    Going Dark

    Comey's career effort to avoid going dark... has gone dark.

  • May 6th, 2017 @ 11:54pm

    No documents

    I realize this is an old article... but it's trending... and there are NO embedded docs, either the lawsuit threat or the Randazza response.

    Perhaps it's time for a followup as to what happened since 2011?

    E

  • May 2nd, 2017 @ 3:58am

    Silly Man

    It's hard not to think Verizon is trolling us all when their GC is named Silliman.


    Silly man. Tricks are for kids?

    Ehud

  • Apr 28th, 2017 @ 10:34am

    "See something, say something" - or get arrested?

    Absurd.

  • Apr 27th, 2017 @ 2:45pm

    Justice for Godwin

    We want justice for Godwin, and we have it.

    - The murderer killed someone
    - He then posted the video
    - Those who saw it, a jury of his peers, found him guilty
    - Rather than cost society a lot of money to try him, and perhaps acquit him on an insanity defense, he took his life and cost society nothing more than a manhunt.

    To the pro death-penalty folks, imagine how many years this would have played out in [mandatory] appeal after appeal after appeal at family grief expense (and taxpayer expense).

    To the anti death-penalty folks, not to worry, God took care of this one for you, and you don't get to question God's will.

    Wow, can you imagine how much better our society would be if everyone that committed a murder (or rape, or whatever violent crime) would then kill themselves? That's 0% recidivism with 0% cost.

    E

  • Apr 26th, 2017 @ 8:37am

    Re: All I really want...

    You don't want a flying car... and I agree 100% with your reasoning (see the first post I posted above...)

    What people mean when say say "flying car" is
    - a vehicle that will show up at their doorstep
    - transport them to their destination
    - will be [relatively] fast
    - will be safe

    The imagined appeal of flight is that you can just zip up, zip sideways, zip down, and be done, ala The Jetsons. The reality of flight in regulated airspace is that there are air-traffic control communication messages, assigned altitudes, directions, and speed, minimum traffic separation, and other things which we TAKE FOR GRANTED yet OBEY ALL THE TIME when we drive on the roadways.

    Let's just admint we're begging the question of the technology not being possible to meet both the side-impact DoT safety standards and the weight requirements for carrying real cargo in the air yet fitting in an 8' wide traffic lane... so given that we'll not discuss this again,

    Making that magical traffic-controlled drive three-dimensional doesn't solve for anything. Everything that takes off must land. Everything that can't land is a risk of falling out of the sky. You can't create parking spots in the air because (hey no infinite power) so the fundamental limitations of 2D traffic will exist with 3D.

    Your point is spot-on. IF I WERE THE ONLY ONE WITH A FLYING CAR, MUHAHAHA then it would be awesome. But given that I'm on Earth and lots of people want to fly and none will want to deal with either the technical or regulatory headaches... it is not going to happen.

    Note: Pilots do a preflight check of the aircraft before every flight. It takes me 20-40 minutes on the helicopter. How many of the readers here just "get in the car and go"?

    Ehud Gavron
    FAA Commercial helicopter pilot

  • Apr 20th, 2017 @ 10:20am

    Randi's disconnected state

    From what I read Randi is suffering from some disconnection from reality, unable to perceive the world the way it is, and feeling a narcissistic compulsion to attempt to "educate" everyone else as to the altered state.

    Truly delusional people are fascinating... for a few minutes at best. Randi's 15 minutes were up in 2015.

    E

  • Apr 11th, 2017 @ 8:48am

    Re: Re: Sadness

    Hey Bill, thanks for your astonishment from two and a half years ago. You're still retarded.

    E

  • Apr 11th, 2017 @ 4:22am

    Illiterate non-apology

    You're not sorry anyone's offended by your illiterate offtopic rant. You're just trying to claim your privileged status to spew on public forums because you feelz your opinionz are more important than the topic being discussed.

    You are wrong.

    Next time you feel like opining off-topic and spewing on a public forum, knowing you're wrong in doing so, and pretending it's ok because your narcissistic attitude of "not caring about others' opinions" somehow makes that right...

    Don't.

    just don't.

    Now go slink off into the sewer from whence you came.

    E
    P.S. If any of the words I used upset you, or triggered you, or micro-triggered you, just read them again.

  • Apr 11th, 2017 @ 3:54am

    awk

    "they're going to have craft backdoors"

  • Mar 30th, 2017 @ 3:58am

    False quotes

    What Bruce Lee said is nothing like that.

    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/163198-you-must-be-shapeless-formless-like-water-when-you-pour

    E rgo and axioms and other big words to seem important and all that.

    E

  • Mar 29th, 2017 @ 2:30pm

    Judge a man by his friends, or obsolete news

    You can get your news from the Bible. You're just uselessly out of date. You can refer to Jestin Coler and not ever google him but go on for two sentences about him and still not bother googling him.

    All that tells me is you're not just out of date... but lazy as well. Further, because you did spend the two sentences to show your pride at your slothfulness I sense you're just ripe to be punished for your deadly sin.

    I refer you back to your bible for sentencing.

    E

  • Mar 29th, 2017 @ 1:35pm

    Blame not the medium

    The Internet is the greatest single advancement in communication delivery mechanism in the last fifty years but it's still only EVOLUTIONARY.

    Print gave man the ability to send messages over distances. Telegraphs added distance, and newspapers added quick turnaround of information. Some of the stuff in newspapers wasn't factual. We call that "fiction".

    Radio took what was in print and added a voice to it, making it available to many more people and more often and at an "easier" appeal than reading newsprint. Some of the stuff on the radio wasn't factual. We call that "fiction". You may have heard of Orson Wells' War of the Worlds scare. That did not lead to a call to censor radio as well it shouldn't.

    Television took what was on radio and added images to it, making it available to yet many more people and with an appeal that merely listening to the box wouldn't get. Some of the stuff on the television wasn't factual. We call that "fiction". You may have heard of Three's Company, All in the Family, Married With Children, Dallas, etc. These did not lead to a call to censor TV as well it shouldn't.

    The Internet took what was on Television and allowed EVERYONE to participate. The gatekeepers of the N major US networks or the government broadcasters abroad no longer prevented ANY OF US from publishing, creating stories, audio, video, which includes fact reporting as well as fiction.

    Calls for censoring "the Internet" are a mislabeled cry to censor PEOPLE. The Internet is just a medium, and it's actually barely that -- it's more a carrier mechanism that allows real media (audio, video, VR, text, graphics, etc.) to allow communication between one to one or one to many or many to many.

    Censorship of a communication mechanism shouldn't be discussed lightly, and when that mechanism is what has provided the biggest boost to human communication in half a century even less lightly, and when the excuse of the day is fake news, well, consider this:

    Four years ago the following would have been censored under these "ideas": Donald Trump, his daughter, and her husband, now control the US government.

    And that -- as we say -- is not fake news.

    Ehud

More comments from Ehud Gavron >>