Ehud Gavron’s Techdirt Profile

gavron

About Ehud GavronTechdirt Insider




Ehud Gavron’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 13th, 2017 @ 12:25am

    Go Team TechDirt!

    I have nothing substantive to add except for my support of TD both in terms of always donating as much as I can... in spreading word of its successes (and now its challenges) and in getting people fired up to support TD.

    I would love to see MR or KW or any of the other "extremely effective" players in 1st AM defense make a move here, and am patiently waiting for that, as well as the "okay okay, donate to us" page.

    I did try to get some background info for you... I called Dell Technical Support and asked who invented email and the guy on the other end said "Shiva Ayyadurai, idiot"... in a Mumbai accent... and hung up on me. /s

    E

  • Dec 30th, 2016 @ 9:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom of expression - until you don't like it

    You're hilarious. My "likely contacts and associates" aren't stupid.

    I'm perfectly ok with people registering whatever domain names they like. This is still a country where we value freedom of expression. The ends do not justify the means, and we do not support censorship.

    Now go troll elsewhere. I'm off to enjoy the NY weekend. I don't have time to answer rhetorical questions posted by people too cowardly to sign their name, too cowardly to allow speech they don't like, and I'm sure the next "analogy" will have something worse than confused business associates, like, say the poor children we should be thinking of.

    Hide under your bridge; happy new year. Be literate.

    E

  • Dec 30th, 2016 @ 7:17pm

    Re: MSFT Word?

    > Sorry, but the internet runs on UNIX, not "Linux".

    Sorry but the Internet runs on GNU/Linux not UNIX™. Very few people use UNIX and those include AT&T in their old DMS switching systems and some government operations. Everyone else uses some open-source variant based on either BSD Unix or Linux.

    > Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.
    Most people who say "I use Linux" refer to the modern-day meaning which is the "GNU/Linux ecosystem." If you want to be a stickler and insist that Linux only refers to the kernel you might want to start capitalizing "Internet" since lower-case Internet means some random internetwork.

    > Linux kernel based operating systems are not ready for production...
    This, and the rest of your rant is factually wrong, technically incorrect, demonstrates a lack of understanding of how operating systems work, conflates file systems with operating systems, and in general represents a decent view of the state of the art of Linux in 1991.

    > Now, if you'd said, Solaris, HPUX, AIX, I wouldn't have argued.
    Yes, you're definitely stuck in 1991. Thanks for informing the world that if everyone said the thing you think you wouldn't argue. Fortunately the world is not hear to hear you argue nor prevent your arguments.

    Argue away. You're still wrong and 15 years behind the times*.

    Happy New Year.

    Ehud
    * In 2017 you'll be 16 years behind the times. Start counting down till midnight tomorrow.

  • Dec 30th, 2016 @ 5:43pm

    Re: Re: Freedom of expression - until you don't like it

    First, you assume incorrectly. Second there are no "security problems" in allowing people to register domain. Finally, thanks for wishing me a life of misery for expressing the idea that anyone should be able to register any domain name or speak their minds or publish their words.

    I am a consultant on security, have an RFC on domain names, and don't wish ill on people who fight for free expression nor do so anonymously.

    happy new year.

    Ehud

  • Dec 30th, 2016 @ 3:40pm

    Freedom of expression - until you don't like it

    "...which apparently had no problem with some internet rando snagging a URL closely associated with the international group that governs domain names. "

    Yes, that's exactly how the freedom to express oneself by registering a domain name works. Can you just imagine the horror if registrars refused to register names that "appear" to be "associated" with other entities.

    It would make registrars worse than the USPTO.

    I'm surprised, Tim, that you would say this, implying therein that censorship of domain name selection is a goal to which registrars should strive.

    Happy New Year. (Feel free to register that as a domain name, if you like. Oh shoot, never mind, it's taken. https://uniregistry.com/market/domain/happynewyear.com)

    Ehud

  • Dec 15th, 2016 @ 2:38am

    TD missed the boat

    TD usually opines that once a device is purchased the user should be its owner, not empowered nor disempowered by software updates from the manufacturer.

    And yet... "the onus remains on customers who, for whatever reason, think it's nifty to ignore recalls and carry around a potential fire hazard during the holidays."

    No. The onus doesn't. Nifty doesn't mean what you think it means.

    These people bought hardware and they intend to use it. Apparently the "sweet sweet offers" aren't so sweet so that 133,000 devices are still out there.

    Stop blaming the "victims" and stop suggesting that the mfg gets to brick devices. The problem isn't the users/victims.

    Clue. By. Four.

    E

  • Dec 8th, 2016 @ 5:40pm

    PACER (ECF) is great. Billing is not.

    The concept is awesome. The implementation has been ok except for when they wanted to delete decades of records https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140821/07015128275/pacer-deleting-old-cases-time-to-fix-pacer.sh tml.

    However, none of that justifies their high fees, ridiculous charges (docket report costing dollars) all for what should be a reimbursement for legitimate fees... all of which have dropped over the years.

    Hopefully we will get progress. Public Access to Court Electronic Records should not be free (or close to) for all, not held back by Ridiculous Identify Poverty Overcharge Fine Folks.

    E

  • Dec 2nd, 2016 @ 11:36am

    -$198/mo to Comcast

    I cut the cord in November 2015. My Comcast bill went from $198/mo to $0/mo. They lost a little bit more than $5.50 on me.

    Now we should also add the costs... after all, surely they saved something in NOT providing me service. Well, it was my backup Internet connection so $0 on bandwidth, and it costs them $0 after the initial hookup to "also" provide me the same channels my neighbor gets.

    So they went from a cost of $0 to a cost of $0 and a net of $198 to a net of $0.

    I enjoy their weekly mailings offering me Xfinity or Comcast or whatever else... just not anything I'd ACTUALLY want like uncapped high-speed service with a static IP. Fortunately I have that from another provider.

    E

  • Nov 15th, 2016 @ 12:11pm

    Scott Greenfield opines similarly

    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/11/15/the-news-thats-fit-to-print/

    E

  • Nov 8th, 2016 @ 1:39am

    Re: Re:

    Hillary's only connection to Watergate is she was on the team investigating it. She wasn't fired from it and there was no unethical behavior. The only people saying otherwise are Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump. See https://www.reference.com/history/hillary-clinton-s-connection-watergate-bd95ec761bddda24

    Your vote goes to Kim Jung Un because you didn't bother to familiarize yourself with the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 which clearly states one has to be born in the United States to qualify.

    You sir, epitomize this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

    E

  • Nov 7th, 2016 @ 3:41pm

    Re: Easy to dispell

    The Al Gore thing is the exact opposite of this topic.

    He never said he invented the Internet. "Conservative" pundits looking to make fun of him made that up. What he said is he was on the committee that approved DARPA funding that led to research on interconnected networks and eventually the Internet.

    So HERE we have a guy who DID NOT invent email saying he did.

    In the Gore case we have a guy who DIDN'T invent something NOT saying he invented it, but the Republican Party talking points, ever a bastion of twisting anything just so we can get back to 1972 says he says he did.

    E

  • Oct 31st, 2016 @ 2:06pm

    Harold Greene is rolling over in his grave

    In 1984 Judge Greene presided over the breakup of The Bell System into a variety of companies including long-distance telephone services provider AT&T, research arm Bell Laboratories ("Bell Labs"), and the regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs, colloquially "Baby Bells").

    Like pieces of Terminator 2 rushing to re-form as the monster they started out as, these companies have been buying and selling competitors, rivals, foes, and friends.

    Even today CenturyLink, a company that includes the former US West territory and several others, announced its upcoming purchase of Level3 Communications. Level3 competes with CenturyLink in offering fiber-optic carrier services and telephone services. It got big enough by buying among others Time Warner Telecom (not to be confused with Time Warner that AT&T wants or Time Warner Cable that nobody wants) and Xspedius -- two market competitors.

    In time that Terminator 2 will be back and we'll have one big national telco and one big national cable company, and the ultimate duopoly will be complete...

    ...unless regulators or citizen lobbying stops it.

    Ehud

  • Oct 29th, 2016 @ 11:01pm

    Inability to read English strikes again

    No, LOL, you missed the point (of every post!)

    It's not a fucking TV show. This discussion is about the purported hero (not the TV show) :)

    I hope that explains it to you. You like to swear but can't understand simple English so may I suggest you go work for a Verizon call center in a third world country? Practice saying "I am trying to help you now." Feels good, doesn't it?

    Best regards,

    E

  • Oct 21st, 2016 @ 3:51pm

    Been there, done that

    I had a car in Junior High that drove me anywhere it wanted to go without me even touching the controls, and told me what to do.

    We called her "Mom."

    E

  • Oct 21st, 2016 @ 7:30am

    The car manufacturer only sells cars

    There's some misconception here that a car manufacturer is responsible for what the buyer does with the vehicle. That is not true today and it's not true tomorrow.

    If someone wants to steal a car that has nothing to do with the manufacturer.

    If someone wants to commit a crime using the car that has nothing to do with the manufacturer.

    This absurd notion that the manufacturer retains RESPONSIBILITY or LIABILITY for actions of others after sale is ludicrous and flies in the face of hundreds of years of law.

    Ehud

  • Oct 20th, 2016 @ 2:41pm

    Re: Liability? Hmm ...

    It's not "most likely Tesla". Tesla sold the car and is not involved in its operation.

    With the exception of idiots suing gun manufacturers, the maker of a SHARP KNIFE is not responsible for anyone's death or nicks. Nor is Tesla responsible for what you do with their car.

    E

  • Oct 20th, 2016 @ 1:05pm

    Liability? naw...

    The Tesla requirement is not "Don't do ridesharing". It's "Don't do ridesharing other than on the Tesla Network."

    That's not a liability thing. That's an anti-competitive thing.

    E

  • Oct 20th, 2016 @ 12:18pm

    A fucking law

    I completely agree -- I thought he might have meant a law about fucking but didn't want to presume. There are enough of those already in the southern states... and... TD covers what happens if you don't get informed consent... and... ;-)

    Thanks for the laugh!

    E

  • Oct 20th, 2016 @ 12:05pm

    Insurance and tickets

    This is a bit off-topic but it brings up two other issues preventing "driverless cars" from being part of our current society:

    1. Insurance policies are issued to _drivers_ based on the driver's record, age, location, and other actuarial factors. If the driver is not a factor, then I don't see an insurance company issuing a policy "to a car."

    2. Traffic citations are issued to _drivers_ based on their actions while in operation of that motor vehicle. I don't see law enforcement willing to attempt to stop and ticket a driverless car.

    Based on these simple things I'm not expecting to see driverless cars in operation on public roadways until both paradigms are resolved. Given that the insurance lobby and the law-enforcement lobby are amongst the largest in this country I don't expect that anytime in this decade OR the next.

    SO this discussion about using one's Tesla for ridesharing purposes... should be constrained to "while one is in the driver's seat of one's Tesla."

    Disclosure: I don't own a Tesla car.
    Disclosure2: I sure wish I did :D :D :D

    Ehud

  • Oct 20th, 2016 @ 12:01pm

    Reading other people's minds is easy... when they have one.

    I'm sorry that I didn't magically intuit that of the many references to laws in the original article or the TD article, YOUR comment was about THAT one.

    Bless your heart for pointing that out! You're so cute.
    Next time you should consider maybe pointing out which law you mean instead of just saying "the fucking law", which could be interpreted to be a comment on "the law" in general.

    Thank you for taking time away from your busy highschool day to chat!

    Ehud

More comments from Ehud Gavron >>