Not an Electronic Rodent’s Techdirt Profile


About Not an Electronic Rodent

Not an Electronic Rodent’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 13th, 2017 @ 1:12pm


    "Many of the companies that I work with ask the producers and the artists to declare all of the tracks that may have been used as inspiration for their new tracks,"

    Well, that's easy; In that box under the question you write, "Every single piece of music I've ever heard may have inspired this track"... Because that's how creation works!

  • Jul 11th, 2017 @ 8:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So again, am I missing something?


    Do you see another option to actually solve this problem?

    Well, I dunno. Maybe starting from the premise of your country that all people are created equal and accepting that you're talking about people and not abstract and awkward results of an unbalanced equation of law? "Rule of law" does not have to mean "inhuman"

    but if sufficient support does not exist to legalize more immigrants (and I see little evidence that there is), why is supporting the existence of a disenfranchised underclass and its endless drip of misery so OBVIOUSLY superior to the (admittedly more dramatic, more sudden, and more visible) misery of deportation?

    This seems like pretty spurious argument to me. For a start it's not like the US has a huge welfare state, so I'm not clear how much "supporting" would need to happen beyond what already happens simply with them being there, which they already are. Secondly, from what I've read a fairly large amount of these immigrants work so they're actually contributing to the economy rather than sponging off it.

    Also not sure how you get to the binary choice of "supporting the existence of a disenfranchised underclass" vs. "misery of deportation", but the fairly obvious answer to your rather contrived question would seem to be; "It's 'obviously' superior because the people to whom it is happening repeatedly choose the one over the other"

  • Jul 10th, 2017 @ 9:57am


    As Cato's David Bier points out, the ICE memo has "rogue agency" written all over it.

    Or (hastily dons tin-foil hat), an agency operating exactly as desired? The "president's" words on the subject lean more to what's actually happening than the EO, which is written that way because; "This wording is in the excutive [sic] order for two reasons: to avoid legal challenges and to prevent manpower waste."

  • Jul 7th, 2017 @ 7:28am


    and then coming out saying that people are leaving because its down to piracy

    Well of course! Piracy is the root-cause of terrorism too, isn't it?

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re: Extremist views

    Given insightful vote for this, even though technically it comes under the category of "well, duh!"

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Hah!

    Because evidence matters, dumbass.

    Think you should have started that one with "Once upon a time..."

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If that were true we'd have to ban shopping malls.

    Not to mention professional sport.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:13am

    Re: Re: Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way

    Prostitution is not and never has been a glamorous trade, it's dirty, nasty, and dangerous for most women.

    Is this from personal experience or an assumption from media? I'll grant that it's not exactly savoury and I can't imagine many girls thinking, "I want to grow up to be a prostitute", but how much of the "dirt" and "danger" is due to it being mostly illegal?

    Dangerous as in catch STDs? Health screening and standards could reduce that. Dangerous as in chance of violence? How much less likely does that become if you can report the crime without getting arrested yourself or being told you were asking for it? Dirty as in morally? Says who? Often the same people who get caught partaking. Dirty as in grime? Again, standards.

    Done for lack of economic opportunity? Well, there's a huge generalisation for a start, but apart from that, who are you to say a woman (or, in fact a man) shouldn't have the choice to do it over, say, a minimum wage job? I imagine that if you took away a lot of the danger and stigmata and health risks, there would be more job satisfaction for some people than stacking shelves for a living or possibly even higher paid work - I imagine that were it safe and mainstream it might be considered more fun for some people than, say, accounting.

    Oh, and sexist much? Why consider just women as prostitutes? Plenty of male prostitutes and, looking from the outside, I'd guess a larger proportion of them would fall up the "dirty and dangerous" end of the profession.

  • Jun 12th, 2017 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: Hmmmmm ........

    If a domestic citizen does something bad, then it's not terrorism! They're just some poor person in need of mental healthcare.

    "Was with you there right up to the "mental healthcare" bit. Mental health is all an imaginary ailment that wastes billions of my... uh... taxpayers money and people should jolly well get over it!" - Theresa May (probably)

  • Jun 3rd, 2017 @ 2:47am

    Re: Obama

    So...what's Obama's motivation on that one?

    Perhaps it's that bad and he's an "Abe" fan;

    "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

  • May 31st, 2017 @ 5:03am


    I hear Net Neutrality causes crops to die too! And it causes cancer, erectile dysfunction, and sever explosive diarrhea. I think you'll find that's Paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin, but it's easy to mistake the two...

  • May 28th, 2017 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Big helping of "Nope!"

    Right, and that's the fact that you can change your password but can't change your fingerprint or Iris.

    Thanks for the TL;DR version :-)

  • May 27th, 2017 @ 3:52am

    Big helping of "Nope!"

    For biometrics generally, a good pin number is probably still your best bet. The tech may improve to the point of being the most effective option some day, but we're not there yet.

    There's a fundamental flaw in using biometrics for security that doesn't seem to get talked about as much as the breakability, and I can't see how it would ever be overcome (Except in part by the sensible current practice of using the biometric as part of security not the whole):

    The flaw is in the "trusted ID". E.g. for a credit card, the "trusted" part of the ID - the thing that makes it worth your money - is the 16-digit number on the front. If the number is compromised by fraud, it's rendered invalid, they issue you a new one and, "hey, presto!", trusted again.

    If your biometric is your security and it's compromised, how can it (i.e. you) ever be re-trusted? And if an "unbreakable" biometric security method is developed that seems to stand up comes along, well that just means it will be used for more and more secure and valuable things making it worth putting more money into trying to crack it until it inevitably is.

    Nope, think I'll stick with the PIN.

  • May 18th, 2017 @ 5:32am

    That works!

    What could possibly go wrong with a policy like this? I mean it's not like it's easy to pretend to be someone else on the internet or anything....

    Next up: BBC demands website visitors submit passport, driving license, statements from 3 witnesses and sworn affidavit from a judge as to your identity before being allowed to comment

  • May 16th, 2017 @ 7:14am


    So you have 5 categories with 2 meaning people support neutrality overall, 1 neutral and 2 meaning people oppose net neutrality somehow. Because only the first category means full, unrestricted support they twist the poor lexicon and decide all the rest (including the middle, undecided/neutral category) means opposition.

    Yes, whereas in reality more people don't know a damn thing about in than the total of people in any way opposed to it. And even if you assumed all the "don't know"s would be against net neutrality if they did, then the total would still barely top what probably amounts to the people who broadly support it but don't think it affects them too much. Reality is that the people who strongly support net neutrality significantly outnumber the total of people who even faintly think it's a bad idea.

    As for the "light touch" nonsense; just look at those categories! If you're in favour, you have the option of "light touch" or "full-on price control". Who the hell thinks the Government should be in the business of directly setting prices or writing terms and conditions?? That's not how regulation works anyway. Talk about a huge middle-ground uncovered! Think that has to be one of the most dishonest questions I've ever seen on a survey.

  • May 10th, 2017 @ 3:08pm

    Re: Pai could get fired

    Just my own hope that Pai could end up without a job if it's found that he lied.

    Only if he were also in a position to investigate the executive branch...

  • May 10th, 2017 @ 10:09am

    well, close

    FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks

    Surely the "denial of service" is coming from the FCC? That's what all those people were trying to complain about, right?

  • May 3rd, 2017 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats have already tried.

    That said, you make a fair point; being aware that both parties are involved in these sort of shenanigans is important. I concede that point.

    That sounds suspiciously like reasoned debate and therefore has no place in a political discussion! +1 internets to you, sir.

  • Mar 30th, 2017 @ 12:51am

    Re: Re: Sounds familiar

    Judges are expected to be experts in law, not computer technology, or biology, or urban planning, or any of a thousand other professional disciplines

    ...But if he were ruling on a case of theft, you'd want him to have a knowledge of the concept of property ownership first, right?

    "As you can see, judge, we clearly have the receipts for the car and the video footage of plaintiff breaking into the garage and driving away with the vehicle"

    "Yeah, but you weren't using it at the time, right? What did you need it for? Case dismissed!"

  • Mar 28th, 2017 @ 10:24am

    Re: Re: This Was Going To Happen Sooner Or Later

    The question is who spills the most blood? The citizens or the police?

    That's even a question? From a very very quick-and-dirty look:

    42 US police officers killed in the line of duty in 2015

    Proper stats of citizens killed by police hard to find but according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics: "From 2003 to 2009, a reported 4,813 persons died during or shortly after law enforcement personnel attempted to arrest or restrain them.". I make that an average of about 700 a year.

More comments from Not an Electronic Rodent >>