Cdaragorn’s Techdirt Profile


About Cdaragorn

Cdaragorn’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 31st, 2017 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: "My plan is to make you come up with a plan... that I will then take credit for if it works."

    While the smart ones just quit and got a job somewhere that doesn't think beating people over the head is a good idea.

    This kind of management never produces good results.

  • Jan 31st, 2017 @ 8:31am


    So taking advantage of increased demand is a horrible business model?

    I must go tell my economics professor about this. Clearly the supply/demand curve doesn't work the way he thinks it does.

  • Jan 31st, 2017 @ 8:28am

    Re: Irrational Numbers

    Thank you so much for pointing this out! The thing I probably couldn't stand more than anything else is all the union workers acting like Uber drivers were horrible people for breaking an agreement they NEVER ENTERED INTO!

    It also sickens me to see the unions using all this misapplied hatred to pretend that everyone who isn't part of one of their unions is somehow powerless and should unionize immediately. Unions can serve an important and valid purpose, but they are not the only way to empower yourself as an employee. The unions of today honestly stopped serving their employees the minute they started forcing them all to join just to work, IMHO.

  • Jan 30th, 2017 @ 10:35am


    No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.

    The only thing about this that harms society at large is this insanely selfish and ultimately fear filled executive order.

    Also, none of the articles on this site have ever been without emotion. They certainly use facts to back up their opinions, but that has never removed emotion from them.

  • Jan 30th, 2017 @ 9:03am

    Re: Re: Biometrics are usernames, not passwords.

    The fact that usernames are not confidential is irrelevant. Neither are biometrics.

    A username is meant to identify a user. That's exactly what biometrics are meant to do. Believing that a biometric is confidential is just inviting yourself to get hacked.

    The problem I have with the push for biometrics today is that too much of the information people are basing their opinions on is assumption, not proven fact. The biggest two being that biometrics are unique to a single person (never proven true), and that they cannot be easily copied (proven false).

  • Jan 24th, 2017 @ 1:35pm

    Re: Re: Time to stop using fingerprints for authentication, then

    Despite their weaknesses, passwords are much better than any biometric.

    If for no other reason the fact that I can change a password when it gets compromised or whenever I choose makes them better. Good luck finding a new biometric after someone gets all your fingerprints.

  • Jan 24th, 2017 @ 1:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Biometrics

    False, false, and soooooo false. It's these very wrong belief's about them that is creating a widespread security problem.

    They are not perfect. In fact, it's common for them to even change over time.

    Even if you did have a perfect capture of whatever biometric you're using, which actually rarely happens, the idea that they are unique has never been tested or proven true. It's just always been assumed, and security is not a place we should be assuming anything.

    They are ridiculously easy to replicate. I can most likely replicate at least one of your fingerprints just testing your outside doors and car doors.

  • Jan 23rd, 2017 @ 9:47am


    So, for this proven science that is so indisputable: could you please show me the scientific test that was used to prove that evolution could turn a creature into something completely different?

    Without a provable process that is shown to produce the theorized results and can be repeated at least 3 times by independent researchers, all you have is a theory. It's a perfectly valid theory, but still just a theory.

    Evolution is a scientific fact, but only in the sense that it can make small changes to adapt to different conditions. My issue with people arguing things like this is that when they want something to be true, it seems they too easily throw even their own scientific process out the window so that they can call it true.

  • Jan 23rd, 2017 @ 9:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The problem here is that both sides are trying to pretend that the other side was universally "good" or "bad". That's far too simplistic.

    There have been times when those in power in Christianity brought a near halt to all scientific advancements and claimed that science was of the devil. That's history, and it cannot be ignored.

    There have also been times when learning and study were embraced by Christianity and helped bring about important growth in knowledge and science.

    In short, blaming Christianity is ridiculous, but ignoring the bad that did happen doesn't help either.

  • Jul 1st, 2016 @ 12:54pm


    The distinction here is extremely important. The fact that someone may choose to feel emotionally distressed by something I do (and it absolutely is a choice. That doesn't mean the choice isn't valid, but it must be seen for what it is) is never a sufficient reason to punish me.

    The first amendment was particularly crafted with this necessary understanding. Indeed the whole point of that right is so that I CAN say things other people don't like that I feel need to be said. I should never intend to harm someone else, but I absolutely should be free to do things others don't necessarily like.

    As for your example with the person who cannot recognize that what they're doing is wrong, that is correct. But there are other things we've accepted that need to be done to help both those people and those around them. While I have some serious issues with how far we sometimes go in terms of when it's ok/necessary to take people's freedom from them, that is one example where someone just honestly needs help.

  • Jun 22nd, 2016 @ 9:31am

    Not quite how headlights work...

    While I agree with the article, I can't move on without mentioning this.

    "If the taillights are on, the headlights are on."

    This is not actually true. Your taillights come on when you turn on your "running" lights. I've seen plenty of people drive around with just the running lights on.

    It's certainly a good indicator that the headlights may have been on, and still comes back to the fact that the guy didn't need them on in the first place.

  • Apr 8th, 2016 @ 9:27am

    Re: Keys

    Ah, but this is where the bill's writers were truly clever.

    It doesn't say they have to provide the keys. It says they have to provide the actual data. Completely removes any possibility of getting around it and making actually useful security.

  • Feb 17th, 2016 @ 3:18pm


    I couldn't stop laughing reading this. I wonder of someone put the page up in the folder and just doesn't understand that the entire folder structure will be made available on the internet.

  • Feb 12th, 2016 @ 7:52am

    Re: More like hiding its heritage

    How does preventing anyone else from ever seeing anything about them help "hold onto their heritage"?

    No one is taking anything from these people. If anything, they're celebrating them and their heritage.

    This is nothing but a selfish money grab. It's the exact same thing they've been doing for generations to the smaller communities around them. They've bankrupted every school and store within 100 miles of their land because judges are happy to bend over to them no matter how ridiculous their claims are.

  • Feb 3rd, 2016 @ 3:07pm

    This a million times over

    companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable are offering them TV and broadband bundles that are cheaper than what they'd pay for broadband alone in order to boost legacy TV subscriber rolls

    I just got another one of these in the mail from Comcast today. This time it even offered speeds more than twice what I'm currently getting from them now. I refuse to sign up for this just to pad their numbers.

    Why would I pay to watch commercials? Why would I pay for a ton of channels with nothing I want to watch on them?

  • Feb 3rd, 2016 @ 7:57am

    DNA is not always what it appears to be

    This is insane (referring to the kid getting kicked out of school). It's a classic case of people who have no clue what the information they're looking at means making decisions based on paranoia.

    We still don't fully understand what makes some genes active and others not in DNA. It's awesome what we've learned so far, but having markers of any kind doesn't really tell us anything right now. All we know is that we've seen these DNA strand patterns in others who exhibited certain traits and maybe there's some correlation. The fact that the kid doesn't actually have the disease is the only fact that matters.

  • Jan 18th, 2016 @ 10:29am

    Can we disagree without throwing insults around?

    Regardless of whether you think Facebook was ok doing this or not, there is nothing wrong with feeling that showing nudity in public is inappropriate. There is certainly no reason to throw insults at anyone that feels that way.

  • Dec 10th, 2015 @ 8:10am

    Laws don't take away choice...

    Making something a law, even a good law, does not take away the right to choose or make something not a choice.

    Is it wrong to hit and run? Of course, but it's even more wrong to insist that someone should not have the power to choose what they do in a situation. They cannot choose the consequences of their choices, but they can and should have the right to make those choices.

  • Sep 4th, 2015 @ 9:21am

    Someone doesn't seem to understand what unconstitutional means...

    Judge Sack also compared the situation to ordering a plane to land mid-flight, rather than complete its descent

    If that plane is violating your airspace and continuing to ignore you, you don't let it land. You SHOOT IT DOWN!

  • Aug 11th, 2015 @ 7:40am

    Don't mind me, just moving to a more secure database...

    Ah, well, we find 87% of security vulnerabilities ourselves, security researchers find about 3% and the rest are found by customers.

    So if I read this correctly, you're saying you don't want to find those 3% of bugs that you fail to find yourselves?

    Great idea, Oracle. Way to give me confidence in your software.

More comments from Cdaragorn >>