Ehud Gavron’s Techdirt Profile


About Ehud GavronTechdirt Insider

Ehud Gavron’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 20th, 2018 @ 2:50pm

    Re: Re: Cable companies... are ... cable companies

    Yeah, but this is different. It's an article 100% about cable tv service.

    Not the same bird.


  • Nov 20th, 2018 @ 2:44pm

    Re: Re: Cable companies... are ... cable companies

    Yeah, Charter is not "an ISP that also offers cable TV services." They're a cable TV company that also offers Internet services.

    This article isn't about Internet, Internet Service, nor Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

    It's 100% about a CABLE TV company refusing to carry a TV NETWORK on their CABLE TV network.

    Nothing to do with any other products they may or may not offer.

    If they also had a nice lobby with flowers you could buy you wouldn't call them a florist, would you?

    Is there any point to asking me if there's any point? Precision in language is key to meaning transfer... which is the point of communication.

    Have a swell day, and thanks for posting anonymously. Did you feel your words were so unwelcome you couldn't stand behind them... or do you work for Charter?



  • Nov 20th, 2018 @ 2:30pm

    Cable companies... are ... cable companies

    I love it when cable companies are called ISPs...


    ISPs don't air cable TV and don't include or exclude ESN or any other network... because... um... they're ISPs, not cable TV companies.

    (Hint: there's nothing in this article about their provision of Internet Services)


  • Nov 20th, 2018 @ 1:29pm

    I can wear a short skirt if I want to.

    Having a phone shouldn't be something we avoid because of government overreach. We [our society and our elected officials] should be limiting that overreach and having strong protections.

    Like, let me think, oh I don't know, the 4th Amendment? And... uh, the Exclusionary Rule?
    And... no Good Faith exemption?

    I tire myself just thinking about how much our protections have been gutted by the gutless.


  • Nov 19th, 2018 @ 3:50pm


    Even more technical, when a prosecutor wants to enter an exhibit at trial, he requests the permission of the Court to do so. That gives the defense an opportunity to object.

    If said objection occurs and if it is upheld, the exhibit is not allowed to be entered, and it never becomes "evidence". Sometimes the prosecution will even return this private property undamaged to the defendant in an undamaged condition, but don't count on it. Law enforcement in the US is all about punishing everyone and hoping to catch some promotions in the process.

    That whole "innocent until proven guilty" and "criminal JUSTICE system" and cops following the law is just an intro to a TV show.


  • Nov 19th, 2018 @ 2:22pm

    Who owns my data?

    TechDirt (rightly) spends a lot of brain power and well crafted discussions discussing our rights to our devices, to have them free of malware, and protecting our rights to use, repair, and keep them free for OUR use, not others.

    So here's a case where the bad guys wanted to get this woman's data. They were determined to hack into her phone to get her private data. We've discussed for ages this data reveals FAR MORE about her life than the alleged drive-by shooting.

    Instead of allowing these bad guys (LEOs) to get her data, she (allegedly) wiped it. That's equivalent in result to her phone being locked and LEOs being unable to unlock it, and equivalent in action to what she's charged with... which is destruction of evidence.

    Evidence isn't "all known data we didn't get to access." LEOs claiming so doesn't make it so.

    There are two types of cops... bad ones, and the ones that let them continue to be bad cops. I don't trust any of them with an open copy of all the data on any of my devices. They can't even have my fitbit.


  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 1:31pm

    Contrary to public opinion

    "Contrary to public opinion" because you said so doesn't make it so, SCOTUS and appeals courts say it isn't so.

    This is the Godwin's Law applied to Second Amendment discussions. Invariably as a discussion of the Second Amendment and right to bear arms occurs, someone will cry out that it's all about militias and nobody has any rights granted by the law.

    It's not. It wasn't. It's just a poorly constructed statement... like your entire epic tome attempting to defend your misinterpretation.

    If only you "aunti-gunz peeps" would just say "militia" and halt discussions in the beginning, nobody would ever need to discuss it. Oh wait, but we still have the rights.


  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 10:41am

    Dead people post only facts

    How would you know? Your dataset likely includes exactly zero dead people who have responded to your polls.

    I, on the other hand, have surveyed many dead people, and asked them about the opinions they posted. Well, to be scientifically precise I said "If you posted an opinion and not a proven fact please let me know."

    100% of dead people post facts.


  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 10:03am


    "Adams said the bills take the First Amendment right to free speech and the Second Amendment right to bear arms into the equation."

    Our inalienable rights are not parts of an equation to be traded back and forth, bandied against each other, weighted like the blind scales of justice, or bartered.

    Our first amendment rights to not have the government impinge our rights to free expression mean exactly that. If the government punishes me for something I said on social media that violates my rights. It doesn't matter if "gun" or if "driver's license" or if "right to ride a train in China." It's a violation of my first amendment rights.

    The second amendment has some guarantees (yes, I see some posters up above have already done the usual trope of "guns moare guns" and sadly these are part of the problem) and those guarantees are not predicated on WHAT I SAY or WHERE I'M FROM or WHO I VOTE FOR. Making my "right to bear arms" dependent on what I said (or didn't say) on social media violates that right as well.

    Remember. TODAY it might be about all the bad things you said on social media, and why you shouldn't buy a firearm (oh, sorry "gun").

    TOMORROW it might be how you DIDN'T speak up in support of the [choose class of people here] and therefore you're a complete a-hole... and shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. Or post on facebook, or instagram,
    or techd...
    [no longer allowed to drive]
    [or own a "guhn"]

  • Oct 30th, 2018 @ 11:37am

    Full letter URL

    The full letter can be downloaded at:

    (It really only adds a one-sentence demand to the twitter-pic of the first page... but hey, for completeness...)


  • Oct 19th, 2018 @ 3:12am

    Re: Re: typo

    Illiterate. Claiming one word means another, especially when the first word doesn't fit.

    The literate English speaking world and I agree. Nobody uses "myself" in a sentence where removing the other parties would make it sound stupid. Example: "Myself fully agrees."

    Take yourself out of it and don't be stupid. It helps to be literate. Or don't write. Either or.


  • Oct 18th, 2018 @ 6:36am


    "real identities of real people (like myself)"


  • Oct 2nd, 2018 @ 5:04pm

    Jackass and intercultural differences

    "'s about what a jackass this guy is..."

    It's amazing how a man who looked at a beautiful woman is a jackass, and yet regularly here in the [southwest] United States both men and women look at people they find attractive, often with a smile.

    That's in these United States. There are other countries, and whole continents, where macho men are raised, taught, and encouraged to appreciate the female form. Those people are not jackasses... they simply have a different culture.

    If you see a cute doggie rubbing his ear you're allowed to smile, look more, and feel warm and fuzzy. Your own doggies don't give you a mean look, withhold affection, or in any way seek to "punish" you (or call you a jackass) for this.

    Apparently in our desire for political correctness we want nobody other than unattached people admiring beauty. That's not just a violation of our right to expression, but probably hastens the path to 1984 -- if we can't think it, we can't do it.


  • Sep 24th, 2018 @ 11:33pm


    It would be really awesome to add some context to let us know that Prince George's County is in the state of Maryland in the United States of America.


  • Sep 19th, 2018 @ 1:54pm

    Beating a dead horse. Or Shiva ayyadurai. Same thing.

    Shiva, who is running for US Senate against incumbent Elizabeth Warren, called her a fake Indian and said voters should vote for him, a "real" Indian.

    This blatant racism comes from the guy who claims racism against him is why nobody believes his false claims about inventing email. It is another example of his lack of ethics and character.

    The voters are responding appropriately. He's running dead last with only 6% of the votes.


  • Sep 13th, 2018 @ 7:19am

    Re: Re: Six-Axis Control

    It's the same 3 axes. The actions of rotating or motion (translation) don't create a new set of axes.

    Personally I can't imagine the "value" of rotating around anything other than the horizontal axis... but that's just me :) "The joy of a barrel roll with nobody in it???"


  • Sep 13th, 2018 @ 7:10am

    Re: "the legal definition of crazy"

    You're right -- you should stop posting while inebriated, or trying to appear erudite when all you're doing is throwing words at a wall and hoping someone else makes sense of your randomness.

    There's a word for that too, but I'm sure you heard that when you received your diagnosis.


  • Sep 12th, 2018 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: REALLY REALLY need to ask..

    Truly I'm passed all this.


  • Sep 12th, 2018 @ 5:58pm

    Six-Axis Control

    I think you mean three-axes.

    1) In our wonderful world of physics there are three axes of motion. (We affectionately call them X, Y, and Z).

    2) The plural of axis is axes.

    P.S. It's not a drone. It's a remote controlled aircraft (R/C aircraft.)

  • Sep 12th, 2018 @ 11:57am

    Assurances from a coward

    Your assurances, as well as your stupid assertions, are worth NOTHING.

    "Your Republicans" - Sorry, they are not owned by US voting citizens.

    "given access" - Sorry you really don't understand anything. No political party granted (or "gave") "access" to anything.

    "guns" - Seriously. Learn the terms. Guns are in your pants. Firearms, pistols, rifles, and cannons... that's what you want to be discussing.

    "corpse shot" - No corpses have been shot

    "by a lunatic" - People crazed by the moon?

    Dude, get with the times. "Lunatic", "guns", "given access", "by Repulicans".

    You're just plain crazy.

    Or a lunatic.


More comments from Ehud Gavron >>