Ehud Gavron’s Techdirt Profile

gavron

About Ehud Gavron




Ehud Gavron’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 29th, 2020 @ 3:30pm

    Re: "Convicted" terrorist

    Lots of links call her "convicted" but I also can find no reference to such a finding by a court of law. Still, she hijacked two planes. That's the problem when you start accepting hijackers as law-abiding citizens.

    Donald Trump hasn't been convicted of tax fraud, grabbing women by their private parts without their permission, cheating US taxpayers out of millions of dollars, etc. He's not been convicted of anything.

    Conviction and prison are the end. Accusation is just the beginning.

    E

  • Sep 29th, 2020 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Working in the communication business

    You're free to make most whatever decisions you want.
    Roger that.

    You are not free to make everyone else shut up
    Roger that.

    You are, however, free to make everyone else shut up on YOUR limited private platform.

    If you don't want that either don't make decisions most people will disagree with or get out of the business.

    So "agree with the majority or else"? The minority never gets a voice OR if they do the company goes out of business?

    That's not democracy.

    E

  • Sep 29th, 2020 @ 1:46pm

    Oversubscription - yes. Peak subscription - no.

    It's not a question of whether you can feed almost half a million people 100Mbps each with a constellation of 12K birds. Internet usage as measured in bps over a prolonged period of time averages out to around 2-10% residential inbound and 10-20% business inbound and 20-30% hosting outbound.

    If you size your network for peak usage, you need to be able to deliver 20% inbound 30% outbound to 485K people. That's doable.

    Musk isn't crazy. People who think a 100Mbps circuit should deliver 100Mbps 24x7 for all customers at the same time are.

    E

  • Sep 29th, 2020 @ 1:39pm

    First Am Rights

    OB DISC: I'm from Israel so it's assumed I'm anti anyone who is against Israel. Not so.

    What she did 50 years ago is almost irrelevant. She's paid her debt to society. I say "almost" because she still has a perspective to share. That can be relevant.

    Zoom, Facebook, Microsoft, TechDirt, Slashdot, all exist as private companies which choose which content to share. (Mike's many posts on content moderation included by reference.)

    That Zoom chose to censor this talk is... in my opinion... wrong. However, the talk could have been taken to any number of other platforms such as MS, Skype, WebEx, etc. The message there is "Hey Zoom, you start censoring our chats... and we'll stop scheduling them on your platform."

    Does Zoom care? Who cares? If FB really censored everything that was libelous, stupid, churlish, annoying, white nationalist, republican (oh sorry to repeat myself) would people stop using FB?

    If they did it would send a message.

    Maybe it's time Zoom got a message. I just don't think it's "wrong" of them to censor. It's their right. Just as it is OUR RIGHT to say "thanks so much for your censorship; we're going somewhere else."

    See you on Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype [MS], meet.jit.si, or any non-Zoom product.

    Ehud

  • Sep 27th, 2020 @ 2:49am

    Re: Oh if only...

    Trump was sued in his official capacity. The DoJ will respond. Even if he wasn't he could hire and has always hired a lawyer. Trump doesn't write out legal things. People who have had strokes don't write. Nor read.

    Nars is a planet.
    Covfefe is what you have in the morning.
    Hamburder is what you eat and also give to pro athletes as a win.
    Walter Reed is where you go after 3 mini strokes.

    What this administration has taught is us we need one little law.
    RIGHTS NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED TO THE ADMINISTRATION ARE RESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE.

    We [speaking democratically] elected the biggest fraud and thief to the highest office in the US and the third most powerful job in the world. We elected people in the Senate like Moscow Mitch and Lying Lyndsey to support him.

    Time to fix.

    E

  • Sep 26th, 2020 @ 9:15am

    Where's the promised filing? And how did DoC get involved???

    So... in Docket #20 Defendant (Donald) says:

    Defendants will prepare and file public, redacted versions of these materials on the Court’s regular docket later today.

    Defendant [Donald in his official capacity] filed no such docs yesterday nor today.

    Docket item #21 shows the Department of Commerce involving itself... and I am not sure that's legit but it's also under seal.

    Docket item #22 shows opposition to Plaintiff's motion for an injunction and expedited hearing, and finally we learn that even though the suit was brought against Donald, the government is trying to interject the Secy. of Commerce as the real person... but not doing it through a request to amend a pleading, adding new defendants, removing old defendants, etc.

    I'm not a lawyer but this seems to be not the way the US federal rules of pleading allow adding parties. I've looked through the FRCP... but... am not an expert.

    E
    So, not being a lawyer, I'm not sure if the court's order

  • Sep 21st, 2020 @ 4:18pm

    Techdirt

    Sometimes a writer at TD gets it so right all you have to do is lean back, enjoy the cough pillow, take a deep breath, let it out slowly, and say...

    Thank you, Mike, and everyone at TD and F64.

    E

  • Sep 19th, 2020 @ 3:09pm

    Re: UDP

    Very much so. There is no cabal.

    E

  • Sep 19th, 2020 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Re: History ...

    You quote the original article as if it's gospel. It's not.

    It is generally considered one of the earliest examples of commercial “spam” on the internet -- and certainly the most “successful” at the time.
    WHO generally considered [past?] this?

    HTTP protocol is redundant...
    So is SCUBA gear. So is SIM card. So is PIN number. Welcome to English.

    E

  • Sep 19th, 2020 @ 1:58pm

    Ad hominems are the last refuge of the needy

    Many of your "facts" are distorted.
    Like which facts?

    To pick one example, UUCP and Usenet were strictly dial-up distribution networks...
    Yes, and that's not a distorted fact. The "Internet" as available to the masses in 1993 was also dial-up, and we all got free coffee coaster 3.5" diskettes, then CDs with AOL, Netcom, etc. That is neither distorted nor does it change teh nature of the fact.

    It wasn't until the introduction of NNTP that Usenet became available on the internet
    Narp. Usenet newsgroups were available long before NNTP. NNTP just made it convenient to use a remote server instead of UUCP to a local store.

    Nothing in the article says any of this was invented in the early 90s... reading comprehension... yada yada whine whine.

    Sorry we read the same English words but understood them differently. Kind of like how you likely read the Wikipedia NNTP article and didn't get past the first part.

    Gotta go -- my modem is tying up the line.

    E

  • Sep 18th, 2020 @ 4:47pm

    History ...

    The only point of this post that touches on content moderation is the decisions on the part of Usenet administrators ('admins') on figuring out how to combat what we now know as spam. These occurred in the real world, unlike the timeline in this article.

    The end result is bots that removed SPAM based on a "spam score" which varied from bot to bot. These would analyze Usenet postings and when the [mostly] same content was posted to different newsgroups, too many newsgroups, etc. (depending on THAT particular bot's settings) the postings were "removed" by a fraudulent Usenet posting pretending to be from the author retracting the post. [That was the only protocol option at the time]

    The commercial Internet was formed in 1993 when SprintLink convinced the Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX) to allow non-Internet companies to connect. Quickly formed thereafter other interconnects such as MAE-West and MAE-East followed. The rest is history.

    The rest of the bad dates are below.

    Shana Tova.

    Ehud

    UUCP was standardized in 1988.
    Usenet was created in 1989.
    Neither of these is "the early 1990s".

    The "Internet" was created in 1973.
    The NSFnet was created in 1985.
    Neither of these is "the early 1990s."

    By 1986 the NSF Supercomputer centers were online. The NSFnet was linked to ARPAnet, and the Internet (or "nascent Internet", whatever that is) was there.
    Neither of these were in "the early 1990s."

    Sir Tim Berners-Lee created the HTTP protocol and the world-wide web in 1989.
    This was not in "the early 1990s."

    While Canter & Siegel did their "green card lawyers spamming the globe thing later" the first Internet spam was in 1978.
    This was not in 1993.
    https://www.edn.com/1st-spam-email-is-sent-may-3-1978/

    The first Usenet spam was not C&S in April 1994. It was someone else in January 1994.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup_spam

    The first "commercial" Usenet spam,[2][4] and the one which is often (mistakenly) claimed to be the first Usenet spam of any sort, was an advertisement for legal services entitled "Green Card Lottery – Final One?".[5] It was posted on 12 April 1994, by Arizona lawyers Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, and hawked legal representation for United States immigrants seeking green cards.

    Cybersell, the company they had setup to do internet advertising, was apparently dissolved in 1998.
    Try 1997. Also don't confuse Cybersell Inc (AZ) with Cybersell Inc (FLA).

  • Sep 16th, 2020 @ 11:56pm

    Re: Re: I call bullshit too...

    I guess the question remains unanswered. Does "The DoJ can say X" means "X" or "one day maybe X" or "it it comes to it in the right way X" or what. Having a lawyer offer an opinion may help.

    Either way, an injunction is typically provided as a relief because money can't solve the problem. "I may not get paid" can certainly be resolved with money. As a non-lawyer I can see why the TRO was rejected, yet still have questions about DoC and DoJ wording.

    I can agree fully the droids working for Trump are as stupid as he is, and cause more harm to the United States than I ever thought possible. I just haven't said it.

    E

  • Sep 16th, 2020 @ 5:06pm

    Congress poised to act to fix PACER fees

    I know people's attention spans are stretched "during these times" (it's always times of something) but this is a proposed improvement to the PACER fees to get them to where they should be -- zero.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/bill-to-tear-down-federal-courts-paywall-gains-mom entum-in-congress/

    Now that I've posted an ars link on techdirt, quick someone put it on slashdot!

    Ehud

  • Sep 16th, 2020 @ 2:57pm

    Legal language

    I am uncertain whether "The Department of Justice can state X" means either:

    1. X
      or
    2. We can state X

    For example, here's my take:
    I can state that The DoJ is run by a corrupt AG.

    Did I just SAY the DoJ is run by a corrupt AG or did I say only that I CAN so state... yet haven't yet actually stated it?

    In the latter case there is still good cause shown for a TRO.

    E

  • Sep 15th, 2020 @ 9:55am

    Re: Well it's kind of correct

    The myth takes on new dimensions :)
    According to this it was a company employee... which COULD have been a lawyer, but undefined... and he "stood in line" not slept.

    It was a Bass employee who rang in the New Year by waiting in line outside the registrar’s office to ensure that the company became the first to file a trademark when the office opened on the morning of January 1, 1876.

    E

    https://www.logoworks.com/blog/bass-pale-ale-brand-and-logo/

  • Sep 15th, 2020 @ 7:28am

    Open source movement

    There is definitely a problem, and the solution is to encourage those who don't cause it, and punish those who do.

    • Form a Craft Beer Open Source group
    • Allow unpaid memberships to show support of the masses
    • Allow paid and corporate memberships to fund the group
    • Craft Beer vendors (sorry, Coors) can participate by
      • Submitting their name and label to be included in group marketing
      • Agreeing not to sue other group members for trademark violations
      • Agreeing to timely publish their spec so home brewers (and others) can duplicate their craft
    • Wait five years

    E

  • Sep 14th, 2020 @ 2:35pm

    Now it's a trademark thing....

    CPB has updated its comments to walk back "counterfeit" and claim the OnePlus buds violate Apple's trademarks. While CPB does have "enforcement of border trademark violations" on their charter, it doesn't seem to me these illiterate child-caging simians* have the intellect to hold a candle to IP lawyers.

    Ehud

    • No insult to the simian population is intended.
      P.S. Mike, sorry to hear about your pooch - my condolences :(
  • Sep 13th, 2020 @ 12:04pm

    Digital

    Bonus points for bringing up Ken Olson!!

    E

  • Sep 13th, 2020 @ 8:36am

    Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome

    They failed to do anything other than attempt to stifle the competition. Had they improvised, adapted, they would have overcame the change and embraced it. The same is true for GameStop. They have lots of physical retail space and display space for games. If the games are not physical in nature that space can be used for other things.

    Hallmark is a niche product but yet they have physical retail stores and they turn handsome profits on selling $2 cards with simplistic sayings. (With all due respect to Mr. Deeds...) GameStop needs to improvise, adapt, and overcome.

    E

  • Sep 12th, 2020 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Most illiterate rant ever

    About the only thing you got right is you "don't care if games on pc[sic] are free". Good for you. The rest of your run on half-sentences (I didn't even think that could be done) are making your English teacher turn over in her/his grave.

    You should apply at the White House. Donald is looking for morons to write his whines for him.

More comments from Ehud Gavron >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it