Ehud Gavron’s Techdirt Profile

gavron

About Ehud GavronTechdirt Insider




Ehud Gavron’s Comments comment rss

  • May 30th, 2015 @ 9:59am

    Rand Paul "will not allow"...

    Perhaps my fellow readers forget. When the majority leaders wants to prevent his peer from speaking, none shall speak. When he wants to prevent legislation from passing, none shall pass. This even if committee has blessed it in full.

    Rand Paul can speak because strawman.

    Section 215 will be reauthorized. Not because it's lawful (2nd circuit decision). Not because it was approved by the House. Because that is how the hand that strokes the other hand is rewarded.

    So we have all day today (Saturday) and most of tomorrow (Sunday) to SPECULATE on "Oh wouldn't it be nice if..." but then they'll reauthorize the USA PATRIOT ACT's sunset sections (including 215) and there will be POMPOUS AGGRANDIZING speeches about how this is IMPORTANT AND VITAL for our SECURITY.

    Except we read techdirt and know that none of this ever contributed to security or prevented any terrorist event. It just takes away our rights and gives money to assholes. I hope you don't mind my one frank word here. Please withhold judgment for 36 hours... by which time you'll either think I'm an idiot and have no faith in our elected "leaders"... or you'll be wanting to use similar language.

    Ehud

  • May 28th, 2015 @ 9:52am

    typo

    "it's cargo hold" --> "its cargo hold"

    Cheers

    E

  • May 27th, 2015 @ 6:44am

    Techdirt is the truffle-pig of the masses

    You missed on this one.

    They will reauthorize the section 215 collection.
    - yes regardless of whether one district court said it was unlawful
    - yes to prevent the sunset clause
    - yes ignoring all the so-called alternatives

    To start a sentence with a conjunction:
    And when they do, you will realize how naive you've been and you'll blanche. Because that's how far we've fallen.

    Four more days.

    E

  • May 18th, 2015 @ 8:57am

    "Get a life"

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud. The things he claims - the basis on which he is hired - are not true and could not be true.

    Dear Marie, your bull in a China shop approach to telling an entire forum of readers and hundreds of comments later to "get a life" is only as tone-deaf as William Shatner at a Star Trek convention.

    The article is about the man, not the show. The discussion on this thread (absent illiterate narcissists like yourself who couldn't be bothered to actually read the article) is about the man, not the show.

    While I appreciate that in the world of your own mind you can barge bull-in-a-China-shop style into anyone's living room anywhere and tell them what to do, fortunately your right to free expression only subjects you to ridicule here.

    So "everyone who disagrees with me is a cynic" and "you all need love" and "leave him the hell alone" and "get a life" are a good way to let us know you're a mistreated bullied small child.

    Work on your own failed relationships on your own time and place.


    Best,

    E

  • May 6th, 2015 @ 4:42am

    Typo/Freudian slip?

    "while taking away frights from citizens"

    Frights --> Rights, although that's quite a Freudian slip,
    adding frights to citizens.

    E

  • May 4th, 2015 @ 10:15pm

    "Trade" "Mark"

    Normally TD is really good about showing the different marks and how there's no opportunity for confusion. This article did not include that.

    Normally TD is really good about showing how one company's trade is different than the other's. Here they both talk about transportation but it's unlikely the olive-oil aussies will be going into space, launching an airline, or pretending they are real-blonde real-white-teeth 50-year old billionaires.

    Normally TD does the research so when group B says "We agreed on all but one thing" we know what that one thing is so we can say "Mr. Branson's lawyers... how could you?" Yet, here... none of that.

    More facts would be helpful to get a mass of support for the conclusions arrayed here...

  • May 2nd, 2015 @ 5:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: How to register a domain name...

    > I think you missed... "Started a business with a dot com name."

    I think in your haste to prove everyone wrong, you missed actually reading what other people wrote before you.

    As in when I wrote entry 268.

    But it's ok. Everyone should all read YOUR posts but you can't be bothered to read everyone else's.

    Ehud

  • May 2nd, 2015 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: How to register a domain name...

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud. He tells fanciful tales and his company trades on that.

    However, the first dot com was not 1994 lol.

    Some examples to point out that's off by a decade:
    Domain Name: bbn.com
    Creation Date: 1985-04-24T00:00:00-0800

    Domain Name: ibm.com
    Creation Date: 1986-03-19 00:00:00 -0500

    Have a happy day,

    E

  • Apr 29th, 2015 @ 10:19pm

    800 baud x2

    Rabbit hole...

    No, it's not possible he used a 1200 baud MODEM and got 800 baud. Back then (2400 baud and below) there was no memory in the MODEM except for a few bytes and no buffering.

    You had to set the serial-port speed the same as the communication channel because of that lack of buffering.

    He never had an 800 baud (or 800 bps) MODEM. Ever. He lied. That's ok though but the problem is when you lie the credibility for the rest of the illiterate rant is reduced...

    time for me to head out.

    Cheers!

    E

  • Apr 29th, 2015 @ 7:56pm

    800 baud modem

    You didn't use an 800 baud MODEM for accessing BBS's[sic].*

    This doesn't give kickstarters a bad name. Kickstarters are not an investment. They're a gamble. If you win then you get a late product at a discount before it's available for retail. If you lose you get nothing. If you wait you can buy it retail -- with guarantees.

    E
    * No telephone MODEMS manufactured ever did 800 baud.

  • Apr 29th, 2015 @ 6:41pm

    1200 baud MODEMs.

    Who would accuse a lawyer of lying? I would.

    He didn't use the Internet since the "1200 baud modems[sic] days". Not even a tiny bit.

    The "Internet" has evolved many times but commercial access was available in 1993. Prior to that, if you were related to the NSFnet, its educational institutions, or the technology that made it run you could have accessed it as early as 1986.

    In 1986 v32 was the standard (9600bps) and it would have been extremely rare to see someone using 1200 baud. 9600bps was exepsnsive. 4800 baud was the price point. 2400 baud was cheap. 1200 baud was obsolete. Nobody used that on "the Internet". Maybe CompuServe or Delphi or AOL.

    Just adding some technical facts here. This pyramid scheme is unravelling, but not fast enough to keep the money out of this scammer's hands.

    Ehud
    P.S. Mr. Cliffts: I intend this posting to be indicating that you are a liar, engage in defrauding those who put money in your hands and did not get a product and that you're incompetent as a lawyer. I live in Tucson Arizona. Come get some Arizona justice. I'll waive service if you serve me with a complaint that is neither materially deficient, misstates the law, has no US English grammar nor spelling mistakes, and is printed on 25lb paper.

  • Apr 29th, 2015 @ 1:51pm

    Freedom of speech

    "If you're defending the enablers of infringement, then you're a pirate."

    If you're defending someone you're exercising your right to freedom of speech.

    Those would would remove our right because "someone copied a file" are the threat to free speech, free expression, and freedom in general.

    E

  • Apr 29th, 2015 @ 12:19pm

    Madman Masnick

    Mike's* generally well-reasoned but let's stick to the facts.

    This is a horrible ruling and if it were here in the US it would set a horrible precedent.

    Ehud
    *Well I'm personally butthurt he turned down my offer to go do coffee or whatever for that offer they have in the techdirt store where you get a 30 minute face-to-face with him. I wasn't even going to bring a macaroni-picture for him to sign. However, the reason I originally expressed an interest in the meeting [which was unrequited and I cried for hours --maybe days] was because Mike puts things together. Anyone can analyze a ruling or write a story. It takes knowledge of the context to frame it in a way that expresses WHY and HOW it is important. Still... the story is not about Mike. It's about the judge's ruling. Right?

  • Apr 27th, 2015 @ 6:25pm

    Teaching to the test

    Often the test focuses on the specific solution to the problem, not how to get to the solution given that problem.

    Students [kids, adults, etc.] who are working to ACE THE TEST are working to regurgitate the solution, not understanding the problem, the steps required to solve it, nor how the solution is proven to exclude type-I or type-II errors.

    We create tests and we create "grading curves" and "people who break the curve" and we turn education into a competition. Competitive vs cooperative is good for SGE but the lesson from that is that it's NOT good for the goals of education.

    These winners [grow up to] become researchers who repeat this fallacy.

    Teaching to the test is not a good thing if our goal is to increase the spread of knowledge [education].

    E

  • Apr 27th, 2015 @ 5:54pm

    Logic indeed

    It's a good puzzle.

    One day I hope to foster a society where everyone is clever enough to solve this puzzle

    and whip to death anybody who holds a spray-paint can.

    E
    oh wait, you mean some of them didn't die? Good at puzzles not so good at whipping then.

  • Apr 22nd, 2015 @ 6:14pm

    You're so cute

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud. What he claims is absurdly false.

    Now this rant of yours, Artie Ziff, is great. It uses sentences starting with "I" many times. It promises to focus on what I (me!) write. Lastly it still talks about the show.

    Listen, psycho honey. It's not about the TV show. Never has been. Take your meds. Get some good sleep.

    "I stopped writing..."

    No. You didn't. Sure wish you would. Freedom of speech extends event to disconnected narcissistic aholes.

    Best of luck luv,

    E

  • Apr 22nd, 2015 @ 4:24pm

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud

    And Walter O'Brien being a fraud really is a funny thing.. not because it's humorous... but because it's sad.

    Internet Kooks unite.

    He's still a fraud.

    "Give it a rest!"

    I'm sorry, was there somewhere you saw a button that said "tell everyone else in the world how to act" and you pushed it.

    Wrong button, dip.

    E

  • Apr 21st, 2015 @ 6:43pm

    Maybe I'm the grand negus

    "Maybe I am his mother, wife, girlfirend, cousin, best friend, someone who works for him, brother, sister, father, etc"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lw2DdPPmPI

    E

  • Apr 21st, 2015 @ 5:08pm

    It's ok to be disconnected...

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud, and this article is about that, not about the show. It's much appreciate by all that this thread persists as it keeps his name in the searchlight.

    What's fascinating is for a disconnected narcissist you're ably willing to aver "Walter O'Brien doesn't care what your thoughts are on him"...

    Do you speak for Walter? Do you read his mind? Do you just "know" how he feels and what he cares about? Did aliens tell you what he cares about and what he doesn't? Do you also speak for those "others"? Are they related to "the others" from Lost!?

    "...but you are so much fun to get going." Ah, so you admit being not only a narcissistic sociopath but also an Internet troll.

    Hardy har har.

    Ehud
    P.S. Loved you on The Simpsons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Rvo6mp2L0

  • Apr 21st, 2015 @ 1:21pm

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud

    Walter O'Brien is a fraud. He says things and claims things that are impossibly true.

    The TV show is of no relevance. Nobody except idiots (see above) watch it, and Walter's friends (see above) who come here to try and nudge the thread into a positive direction about the show.

    Bad news, shils. This thread is *still* not about the show, no matter how much THE SHOW SUCKS. It's about Walter O'Brien being a fraud. He still is.

    In case I'm not clear, and the thread is beyond your comprehension level for English reading just repeat these words to yourself:
    Walter O'Brien is a fraud.
    Scorpion is a stupid show.
    Nobody should believe a word said by Walter O'Brien or the show.

    Hope this gets through that thick empty dried up husk of a coconut you use to filter messages through.

    E

More comments from Ehud Gavron >>