Cdaragorn’s Techdirt Profile

cdaragorn

About Cdaragorn




Cdaragorn’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 9th, 2018 @ 7:54am

    Re:

    You're welcome to fight this battle on only one small front. If you read more than just this one article you'd know that you basically have no chance of winning on that front since ISP's have long since written their own state laws to stop you, but go ahead anyway.

    The rest of us choose to fight this fight on every front we can. We're absolutely for your idea no matter how much you want to pretend to yourself that we're not. We're just also for the other methods our system has provided to protect against monopolist control over necessary communications networks.

  • Jan 2nd, 2018 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Scarlet Letter

    Any positions outrageousness is purely a matter of opinion. Not clearly stating that you are being sarcastic perfectly legitimately leaves reasonable people wondering if you are really that hateful/whatever extreme opinion you've chosen to express.

    It is not their fault for not seeing what you didn't make clear. That is entirely on you.

  • Dec 19th, 2017 @ 10:33am

    Re: This is the reason for the March through the institutions

    No one said that we like what these platforms are doing. That's not the point at all.

    The problem always comes down to the fact that in order for ANYONE ANYWHERE to have any chance at having the freedom to speak, we must allow all private parties to enjoy both the freedom to speak and the freedom to choose whether or not to listen. In that world, these platforms cannot maintain their dominance if they stop listening to speech that most people consider important. If most people do not consider your speech important that certainly entails its own problems, but also means that the platform choosing to reject your speech really doesn't change anything.

    It also means that you can still get your speech out there no matter what any other private parties say. You cannot censor one party without censoring all parties. The freedom to speak is very much an all or nothing rule: you either have it or you don't.

  • Dec 18th, 2017 @ 9:49am

    Re:

    You might want to read the rest of the article before posting. Their use is pretty blatantly fair use, and fair use of something without their permission is not disrespecting their copyright. Suing someone when they use your copyright fairly is.

  • Dec 13th, 2017 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: It isn't

    I agree, but that's my entire point. By doing this they're creating more ways the safe can be compromised. And these new ways can be done without physical access to the safe. That makes this doubly insane to even consider doing.

  • Dec 13th, 2017 @ 10:57am

    It isn't

    To put it bluntly, it isn't.

    There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever make a gun safe able to connect to any kind of device, anywhere for any reason. If you can't get to the safe to open it, what possible reason could you have to open it?
    If connections like this could be perfectly secured then I suppose some might like the "convenience", but I can't even see an argument behind that. Again, the only point of opening the safe is to GET the gun.
    The fact that you can't perfectly secure applications just kills this idea before it even gets started. It's bad enough that many modern gun safes have put fingerprint readers on them for "convenience" despite those being one of the easiest security features to break on the planet. We don't need and should never want more ways for someone else to be able to hack open access our firearms.

  • Dec 9th, 2017 @ 8:25am

    Re:

    Unfortunately you've made the false assumption that you represent the general public. I can assure you that you do not come even close to that.

    I've never been to any con anywhere mainly because I don't have the money for entry, though I live very close to SLC. At no point in my life have I ever thought that the many different comic cons I've heard of were in any way associated with each other.

    That honestly seems like a really silly assumption. Why would two events in locations hundreds or sometimes thousands of miles away from each other be in any way associated with each other just because they use a similar descriptive term in their name?

    If we were talking about something like "McDonald's" or even "Burger King", something that was clearly a NAME and not a DESCRIPTION, I could understand making that connection. Even not understanding where the con part of comic con came from, it's clearly a description of WHAT the event is, not WHO is putting it on.

  • Dec 6th, 2017 @ 5:47pm

    Re: Just Wow!

    So a video of a Democrat talking about how much success the Democratic party has had in her state....what exactly do you find surprising or even noteworthy about that?

  • Dec 5th, 2017 @ 9:07am

    Re:

    Really? So because they live on the same soil that Hitler did, they're Hitler?

  • Dec 5th, 2017 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Spelling error

    He obviously doesn't understand magic. I mean how many times have we watched magic blocks busted wide open by those smart enough to trick the magic or even just strong enough to blast their way through it?

    Magic locks are the worst.

  • Dec 5th, 2017 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re:

    I get what you're saying, but that simply isn't going to work. The internet has become essential to most people for a reason: it works far better than other options do.

    We can't go back and make the internet non-essential again. That would basically be the same as trying to go back to a time when phones or electricity weren't considered essential. It's simply not going to happen.

    Our best hope at this point is that as these horrible changes roll out over the country, lots of people wake up to the issue and Congress or the Courts are finally forced to put the reasonable oversight back into place by a backlash on the order of what happened with SOPA and PIPA.

  • Nov 25th, 2017 @ 11:48am

    Re: And this is why...

    While paranoia will certainly keep you safe, I personally have no interest in living closed off from everyone else just because there are bad people out there.
    The problem with all of these devices is not that they cannot be secured, it's that these companies don't care to try. It is possible, but it takes a lot of careful effort and that costs $$$. Until people in general learn enough to stay away from their stuff without proof that they've made that effort, no one will care to do it.

    Also, comparing your "smart phone" to IoT objects is a bit misleading. Your smart phone is a portable computer, not just a small appliance looking to hook up to the internet. They have in general proven to be far more secure than IoT devices have ever tried to be. In large part because they work in a very different ecosystem to what these smaller devices have to deal with.

  • Nov 25th, 2017 @ 11:44am

    Re: Re: Re: IOT Locks

    I think you're seriously overselling how great "hardware designers" have done.

    While fundamentally being hooked up to the internet doesn't make a difference as far as securing packet delivery goes, it does make a difference as far as security goes. Hooking up to the internet vastly increases the pool of people that can try to access it, which is a huge security issue.

  • Nov 17th, 2017 @ 1:12pm

    Re: "Jail Her!" -- Don't you get a trifle irritated at that?

    It's not a "bogus" charge, either.

    I'm sorry, what would you call an illegal arrest that the sheriff can be charged criminally for going through with?

  • Nov 7th, 2017 @ 7:41am

    Re: Common Law

    Ya, that's not how "common law" systems work. A judge might be able to say whatever they want, but they cannot enforce it. This is why we have checks and balances in place.
    This is just a symptom of a different problem: No system is ever better than those put in place to manage it. You can make all the rules you want, but if those who manage enforcing the rules refuse to follow them, all your rules are worth less than the paper they were written on.

  • Nov 2nd, 2017 @ 6:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Fortunately you'd be wrong. Since you already own a legal version and downloading the cracked version from someone else doesn't involve you breaking the DRM, it's just format shifting which is 100% legal. Ain't copyright law great?

  • Oct 31st, 2017 @ 9:49am

    (untitled comment)

    How everyone looks at these tests really gets to me.

    The test didn't fail. That's not the problem. It tested positive for exactly what it was supposed to test positive for: sugar.

    That's the problem with these tests. They are being run by people who have no idea how chemical tests work based on lies from those who created them.

    As someone who has studied chemistry, let me make this very clear: it is impossible to make any kind of chemical test that can positively identify a substance in only one test. A chemical lab is going to run the substance through several tests each meant to rule out other substances in order to firmly prove that there's only one possible substance it could be.

    These tests need to be banned outright. At most they should only be used so the officer on the scene can tell if it's worth sending the substance in for a real lab test or not. Any arrest made based on any single test on the side of the road should be seen as obviously unconstitutional. There's no way that kind of test can give you enough information to establish probable cause.

  • Oct 16th, 2017 @ 11:03am

    Traditional understanding is actually part of the problem

    Cosmo is not remotely pornographic by any traditional understanding.

    Actually, traditional understanding of pornography put men or women walking around in long sleeved "underwear" as pornography. So Cosmo absolutely does qualify under some traditional definitions of it.

    This of course only serves to expose the problem with trying to legislate it. Whose definition do you accept? I personally feel that complete nudity should not be on public display, but then there are many that would argue against me on that.

  • Oct 16th, 2017 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    Actually, that one is taken care of by many of those who would be in favor of this kind of law. It's not recognized as revealed scripture by the LDS faith.
    Which kind of makes sense, considering the Bible was put together by a bunch of self appointed leaders of Christianity long after the last trace of any Apostle had been killed off. They were bound to get some things wrong.

  • Oct 4th, 2017 @ 9:40am

    Re: "Cruel and Unusual"

    "if punishments were usual, nobody would work to avoid them"

    Where on earth did you get this twisted line of logic from? A whip across my back hurts just as much no matter how many times I've had it applied.

    It's this exact kind of uncaring attitude that leads people to repeat their crimes and increases crime in general. Someone doing something wrong does not make it right to toss them to the dogs. The point of ANY punishment short of capital should always be to help the person want to change.

    Any punishment that doesn't have that as it's goal is just torture for the pleasure of the punisher.

More comments from Cdaragorn >>