ThatFatMan’s Techdirt Profile

thatfatman

About ThatFatMan




ThatFatMan’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 23rd, 2017 @ 8:02am

    Re: Close, but not quite right

    Of course, on the other hand, does it even matter?

    In a day and age where you don't own your devices can you really be upset when they search Apple or Samsung's phone or HP or Lenovo's laptop?

  • Aug 23rd, 2017 @ 7:37am

    Re: Close, but not quite right

    Totally right, and kinda baffling too. I'm pretty sure they all took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. The same Constitution that is pretty clear on the matter:

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    If you can't deal with that, you have no business being in a government position. These people need to resign immediately.

  • Aug 22nd, 2017 @ 7:33am

    (untitled comment)

    I've been told that a work year (at least in the Fed. Govt) works out to 2087 hours. For one person. So 3000 hours is nearly 1.5 years! and 61000 hours...that's nearly someone's 30 year career!!! Absurd doesn't even begin to describe those estimates.

  • Jul 21st, 2017 @ 11:14am

    Re:

    I'm with you, and I think the best part is the use of the ™ symbols two paragraphs before this line shows up for Wikipedia™, the Free Encyclopedia™ and HyperLink™

  • Jun 28th, 2017 @ 6:30pm

    (untitled comment)

    "The problem in this case is occurring online and globally. The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally."

    Ok, Canada has clearly defined borders, and as they openly admit, the Internet does not. Am I the only one that thinks that the Canadian court here just admitted they don't have jurisdiction?

  • May 2nd, 2017 @ 11:19am

    Judge Brett Kavanaugh

    According to this man, Absent a showing of market power, the Government may not tell sewage companies how to exercise their discretion about what which brand of toilet paper I am allowed to use to wipe my ass

  • Apr 26th, 2017 @ 6:42am

    Re: 25% are just losers

    You don't have to be a Comcast customer to hate them. Even when I lived in areas where Comcast thankfully wasn't, I was glad I didn't have to deal with them because I hate them.

  • Apr 14th, 2017 @ 6:38am

    (untitled comment)

    I agree completely that consumers need to be vigilant and have a voice in this fight. The real question I have though is this, how do we make ourselves heard? Without a platform big enough, organized enough and funded enough to keep us from being ignored, the major ISP's will be able to drown out anything we would otherwise say with their strength of their political donations and lobbying machine.

    I don't mean to sound like a downer here, but I see these articles time and time again that point out the problems, and no one ever seem to have an answer for how we can join together to fight back. Anyone have any thoughts?

  • Mar 8th, 2017 @ 11:45am

    (untitled comment)

    Call me crazy, but I'm sure if they spent the $88 Billion (or whatever obscene amount of money is on the line here) on research and development, they could probably come up with some actual innovation that benefits both customers AND AT&T. I'm failing to see, and they are failing to tell us, exactly why they need Time Warner to innovate in the first place.

  • Sep 28th, 2016 @ 5:39am

    I'd actually like to buy this shirt, but...

    Unfortunately I like longer shirts of the #XLT variety. Hope in the future you can work with a vendor that can supply these sizes.

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 8:00am

    Hidden Costs

    I felt this was as good a place as any to discuss my plans. I'm currently on a 2 year contract with Comcast that will expire in a few (long?) months. I have a bundle with TV, internet and phone. Unfortunately, I have 2 cable boxes from them because, as we all know, there is no alternative. They do, however, have the option to let you purchase your own cable modem for $10 a month. I opted instead to purchase my own for $150. over 24 months, I'll save at least $90 in rental fees. Or so I thought.

    I've had Comcast service now for nearly a year and a half, and the cost of that modem has paid for itself in money saved in rental fees. I'm at the point where I'm finally making money back on the modem. Evidently Comcast decided this wouldn't do, and last month I was billed $10 for a modem rental fee. Comcast decided suddenly that they owned my modem (honest, I went to one of the service centers and talked to the people there who showed me on their computer where the modem I purchased, was labeled "Comcast Owned" when they put in the S/N from my modem). Fortunately, I was able, thanks to Amazon, to pull up a receipt showing I had purchased the modem. They did, without media intervention, adjust my bill. However, they also told me that I will probably have to do this every month from now on because even though I bought it, they still own it.

    Unfortunately, I'm stuck with them. They are 1 of two options, the other of which has internet speeds so slow as to be useless in this age. But, I totally plan to get rid of my bundle and just keep the internet and stream all the other content. And it will still be cheaper than what I pay now. This business with the modem issue pushed me over the edge, and I just can't give them any more money. (I have to have internet access for work, so I can't drop them completely). I'm sure my story is not unique, but it is yet another reason why people are cutting the cord. Who wants the hassles?

  • Aug 29th, 2016 @ 7:21am

    (untitled comment)

    Ok, so Hillary is on the "encryption is bad because terrorism" bandwagon and yet she is encouraging the use of encryption for her campaign.

    This tells me all I need to know...Hillary is preparing to carry out a terrorist attack on the Whitehouse.

  • Aug 25th, 2016 @ 5:14am

    Link

    A friend from work shared this with me recently, and it seemed relevant to the discussion here. It's basically a short quiz (about 13 random questions) on different scenarios where the car must choose between killing pedestrians or passengers.

    http://moralmachine.mit.edu

  • Jul 15th, 2016 @ 5:43am

    (untitled comment)

    We're just to busy making sure transgender people can use whichever bathroom they want, gays can get married and force christian bakers to make their cakes and that women have the right to kill their unborn babies to worry about the blind. Maybe if they just put together the #BlindLivesMatter movement they could get some more attention and advance their cause.

  • Jul 5th, 2016 @ 11:06am

    (untitled comment)

    Zeus. Definitely Zeus.

  • Jun 2nd, 2016 @ 12:00pm

    With this decision...

    Copyright terms are long. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly long they are. I mean, you may think it's a long time down the road for a patent to expire, but that's just peanuts to Copyright terms.

  • May 9th, 2016 @ 6:18am

    Re:

    This makes me think of the Affordable Care Act, where it was once said "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". If you were right, that pile of shit wouldn't have passed either, but here we are a few years later living with the consequences of politicians voting for something when they didn't know everything that was in it.

  • Apr 1st, 2016 @ 9:57am

    (untitled comment)

    I feel that Jonathan Zdziarski should win most insightful comment this week. He'd get my vote.

  • Mar 14th, 2016 @ 8:49am

    (untitled comment)

    Sounds like someone would fit in perfectly with a Trump Presidency. I can see him being nominated to head the FBI

  • Mar 11th, 2016 @ 7:25am

    (untitled comment)

    The FBI/DOJ argument is bad and they should feel bad. This is solely about precedent, and should they succeed, it will always be about "just this one phone", every time. You'd even think by now, with the AWA being some 200 years old now, give or take, that they'd have some better case law to rely upon.

    Consider this: At some point the FBI/DOJ, in an investigation, has came across documents written in code or a locked safe that might contain evidence of a crime. But when has the government tried to compel Microsoft to help them decode those documents because their software was used to write them? When have they tried to compel the makers of Liberty safes to crack open one of their safes because it might have evidence contained inside? After all, their arguments are that because they write software or created the security features that are now getting in the way, they should be compelled to assist the government. They didn't, because even though these situations aren't exactly the same, they knew it was a dead end, it would never work and they could never compel those companies to do what they now want Apple to do. There is no precedent, because they would not have succeeded before and because what they are asking for is completely ridiculous. And they should never succeed in this.

    I will say however, that should the FBI/DOJ ultimately succeed, I sincerely hope that Apple "accidentally" bricks that device and triggers a memory wipe too, so that iPhone can never provide them with what they seek and to make law enforcement in general think twice before asking Apple to help them.

More comments from ThatFatMan >>