Coyne Tibbets’s Techdirt Profile


About Coyne Tibbets

Coyne Tibbets’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 10:02am

    Re: Pot and kettle

    I did not intend to post this on this thread. In fact, I don't think I did. Browser screw-up maybe?

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this

    Yes, child, I am an adult.

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 9:46am

    Re: Look at it this way

    OMG I did not know that!

    Obviously that justifies the on-the-spot execution of anyone who has a permit and a joint!

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 9:40am

    Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this

    It isn't a matter of what he invented that is the issue, it's the breadth of his claims.

    Let's put it into the context of electricity, which was discovered well before 1600 and commercialized by men such as Edison and Tesla. By 1936, when the Rural Electrification Administration was formed, most cities were already well electrified. This is a matter of historic record.

    Now let's suppose an inventor was born in 1996 and in 2016 stuck iron and aluminum plates in a solution and showed that it produces electricity, inventing the iron-aluminum battery. Let's say it even has advantages and so he gets a well-deserved patent for it.

    That patent would entitle him to exclusive manufacture and sale of any iron-aluminum battery.

    But suppose the inventor goes beyond that and asserts that his patent covers all electricity. He demands that everyone must pay him who makes/sells electricity (Con Edison, Duke Energy); anyone who makes an electrical device (light bulbs, toasters); and anyone who uses electricity (the SuperDome, you). Well the breadth of that claim would be obvious bullshit, wouldn't it? And that inventor would be like Shiva..

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 9:08am

    Pot and kettle

    In the lawsuit, Murray's evidence that this is false seems to focus on semantics and making fun of the MSHA inspectors...

    But, by Murray's own standards, isn't this defamation of the MSHA inspectors?

    Peter Thiel put his billions behind a lawsuit against Gawker on behalf of a third party. Seems to me that he set an example that Oliver might imitate: By filing a defamation lawsuit against Murray on behalf of the MSHA inspectors.

    That would make at least as much sense as Murray's lawsit against Oliver. Very fine irony, too.

  • Jun 10th, 2017 @ 11:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Checked luggage is put in containers

    You want to say so long as no one is directly affected by the explosion, all is good. You forget that, direct harm aside, the passengers are packed in a tin can with the explosion and its consequences; that the tin can is held up by air; and that many of the consequences of an explosion in the tin can result in it and the passengers impacting the ground at high speed.

    And if the plane does crash, the fact that the explosion might not itself have directly harmed the passengers, is very moot.

  • Jun 3rd, 2017 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Re: Checked luggage is put in containers

    Kill radius works on the ground, not so much airplanes. As a gross example, suppose an explosive charge blows the tail off the plane: that the passengers were outside the kill radius and therefore survived the explosion won't earn may brownie points after the subsequent 400 MPH vertical impact with the terrain.

    It also isn't always explosion and fire that are direct causes of death. UPS Flight 6 was brought down by smoke from the cargo fire--no one died from the fire itself. In addition to toxic components of smoke (which can kill) airplanes operate in a hostile environment. Unplanned events (fire) can result in damage, which in turn results in death. Nine passengers of United Airlines Flight 811 died because a cargo door opened during flight. Hydraulics and electrical systems pass near the cargo area and can be damaged as well.

    Removing a bomb or incendiary device to the cargo hold does not assure passenger safety, as it might in a building on the ground.

  • Jun 3rd, 2017 @ 3:29pm

    DHS: Checked bags now MANDATORY

    After watching DHS try to explain this, combined with it's likely meaninglessness as an anti-terrorism measure, I have concluded it has nothing to do with terrorism.

    This measure is about checked bags.

    A carry-on bag is free and checked bags cost $$$$. As a result, the travelling public saved money by stuffing their carry-on and forgoing checked bags.

    (The last time I traveled, I shipped the stuff that wouldn't fit my carry-on by was cheaper than a checked bag.)

    This has hit the airline bottom line in two respects. First, they still have to have baggage handlers, even though fewer bags means less money to cover the cost. Second, the carry-on bags are now heavier: more fuel for free carriage.

    What can the airlines do to counter this? Perhaps a law that a checked bag must be purchased? Such a law would be unlikely to pass Congress (unpopular).

    So they asked big daddy DHS to make a rule. How to justify such a rule? What should it say? The first answer comes easy these days: "terrorism" justifies any rule whatsoever.

    The second answer is tougher, because how do you justify forcing a traveler to pay for a checked bag--even with terrorism as your excuse? Electronics is the answer: almost every traveler carries a laptop, pad, camera, perhaps other devices. Call these devices weapons of terror...and then make a rule that any device bigger than a cellphone must be checked.

    That is what DHS has done.

    I have seen no reason to think there is any other meaningful justification for this rule. Watching DHS boss John Kelly stammer around, pretending this has a justification, other than airline greed, has only firmed my belief.

  • May 31st, 2017 @ 8:17am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I didn't call it "extortion" for nothing.

  • May 31st, 2017 @ 8:14am

    Re: Other products

    ...and tractors (right to repair).

    Don't worry about the poor, poor companies: Congress will fix this problem next week.

  • May 31st, 2017 @ 8:11am

    Re: fUNNY?

    HOW int he world can they contend that is has ANY WORTH in ANY CRIMINAL CASE...

    The thing is, forfeiture is not criminal--it's civil. A lawsuit against your assets in which you-the-victim have to prove your assets are innocent. (Good luck with that.)

    The cops don't need evidence to stand up in court: they only need enough tracking to know which assets have yet to be converted.

    I think when the Bronx Defenders finally get a look, they'll find that converted assets are no longer listed; that they're routinely deleted. Wouldn't want to keep any records of what was stolen in the past.

  • May 30th, 2017 @ 9:36pm

    Slow learners

    The court also ordered the government to file as much of its responses as possible on the public court docket.

    " much of its responses as possible..."?!! Judges must be the slowest learners ever. You give the government an option and "as much as possible" always translates to 0.000000000000000%.

  • May 30th, 2017 @ 9:22pm

    Plain as the nose on your face

    Kelly explained what this is about: checked baggage. (Oh, yes, you do have to read between the lines a bit.)

    The airlines charge for checked bags, so everyone stopped using them and stuffed their carry-ons. That hurt the airlines' bottom line... now they're getting Big Daddy DHS to force you to pay for a checked bag.

  • May 30th, 2017 @ 9:10pm


    It's a great idea, everyone agrees...except the companies, they don't agree at all!

    Whether it's ink cartridges, pharmaceuticals, or coffee maker manufacturers, the holy grail of marketing is the consumer who buys another of something "every day."

    That's why I call this "the Extortion Generation": the company offers you a shiny new toy. Then when you plug it in, they add, "You want your shiny new toy to work, right? Then you better get your credit card out and buy, buy, buy..."

    (For meds it's, "You want to stay healthy, right?" Latest marketing improvement: "If you stop taking our drug you might die...")

    Haven't you noticed that these "daily" purchase items are always 98.5% profit? An ink cartridge is a $0.10 cent injection molding, $0.05 chip, and a few other odds and ends probably totaling less than $0.25. Including the ink. Boy isn't that 7,200% markup just heavenly...for the company?

    Even the right-to-repair nonsense is the same thing: "Remember that new tractor you bought? If you'd rather it did something besides sit and rust, better bring it by OUR shop for an oil change."

    Don't get me started about intellectual property extortionists ("troll" is totally the wrong word).

    Extortion is the most profitable business model that exists. Trust me when I say companies are not giving extortion up without a fight.

  • May 30th, 2017 @ 8:07pm


    The PrettyDarnedSpecialDB engine seems to lack a few important features. It can't COUNT(), SUM(), run queries, or display (or export) data. It must have a really interesting architecture...


    Oh, of course! They're storing it on that printer. You know, the one that feeds its printed output directly to the shredder...?

    Should have named it ShredItAllDB.

  • May 26th, 2017 @ 9:44am

    Big surprise

    Big surprise, a government using an event like this to justify killing encryption. Anything justifies that in their view.

    Birds chirping in the trees in early morning? Kill encryption. Clouds shading the land? Dew forming on the grass? Red sky at dawn? Kill encryption.

  • May 26th, 2017 @ 9:33am

    Re: The inconvenient truth about the Democratic Party

    I gather you're a cable company operative disrupting free speech on net neutrality. So your diatribe on liberal free speech rings hollow, you hypocrite.

  • May 22nd, 2017 @ 5:38pm

    FCC Response?

    "He questioned our authoritah, so he's gotta be a #@$&!+% terrorist!"

  • May 22nd, 2017 @ 5:27pm

    Whence justice?

    How we supposed to get justice when we can't take the case to where the "convicting jury" lives?

  • May 8th, 2017 @ 5:21pm

    Re: For reference

    Well no wonder Tamir Rice is dead: two dead officers justifies summary execution of everyone in the neighborhood!

    ...or it could be that each case should be judged on its own merits, without guilt-by-association hand-washes.

More comments from Coyne Tibbets >>