Ehud Gavron 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1631) comment rss

  • On the post: Elon Musk’s Latest Round Of Bigoted Tweets Likely Cost ExTwitter $75 Million Over The Rest Of 2023

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2023 @ 08:08pm

    "Shut up, self-loathing cracker!"

    I think what you meant to say is "I'm a racist. I'll be quiet now and stop attempting to bark out order like anyone follow them." Noted. You can sit back down now.

  • On the post: Elon Musk’s Latest Round Of Bigoted Tweets Likely Cost ExTwitter $75 Million Over The Rest Of 2023

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2023 @ 05:40pm

    Who owns Twitter?

    Musk is a majority shareholder, and Twitter is a private company.
    Musk is a majority owner of X corp. He has private arrangements with lenders to which the public is not privy and that likely encumbers some of his rights with respect to that ownership. Some of those may include rights to minority shareholders, lenders, and others.
    A hostile takeover isn’t possible in this case, he can’t be forced to sell.
    I understand why that is a reasonable assumption, but it's not necessarily true, particularly in light of a $44B acquisition slowly becoming worth less. If any of his leverage is margin he may be subject to a call... which would require infusion of cash to meet the call, or trading shares or even selling them.
    The minority can’t force him to sell. They can sell their shares, but that’s it.
    Again, that information is not public, so we can only assume. However, we've seen that really rich people get really favorable deals, so it's not safe to assume that the same rules that apply to the average investor, or Mr. Orange Face applies to Mr. Richest Man.
    The only way to buy Twitter would be to get him to sell it voluntarily.
    That's definitely A WAY to purchase X Corp's holdings of the formerly-known-as-twitter thing. Musk famously eschewed doing DD so there isn't that huge "book" that would delineate clearly what IS and what is NOT part of the deal or SHOULD BE part of the deal or MUST BE. For example, obviously the domain name should be part of it, but is that "twitter.com" or "x.com" or whatever? The intellectual property (which is neither intellectual nor property) is also subject to that question. Copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade dress, trade secrets, and whatever else gets lumped there would be lumped in there. For the sake of making it easy let's say there's a finite list of the "sum of all assets and liabilities that Elon Musk has acquired, grown, and are related to that formerly-known-as-twitter thing" and that there's a price which when offered to Elon and his lenders and whomever else that gets a say is acceptable. IFF then the deal could be done. Frankly, he's such a sausage-brain if you offered him $44.001B he wouldn't take it because he's unable/unwilling to admit failure, and a one-year gain of .001B ($1M) which would make any normal person happy... would be beneath his ego to accept. I believe he'd rather run $44B into $0 than "only make a cool million."

  • On the post: Elon Musk’s Latest Round Of Bigoted Tweets Likely Cost ExTwitter $75 Million Over The Rest Of 2023

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2023 @ 03:03pm

    People who judge everyone

    just because you disagree with it doesn't make it "bigoted"
    Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it "incorrect".
    this is biggest lie liberals tell.
    Nice to try and tar all people with one brush. Having no knowledge of "all liberals" (whatever THAT is --in your brain) and all the lies these people may tell, and then subsequently quantify the "biggest lie" is outside your qualifications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ4Zy1Q2p8g

  • On the post: FCC Moves Slowly To Update Definition Of Broadband To Something Still Pathetic

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2023 @ 02:51pm

    Bandwidth Symmetry

    OB DISC: I've ran two ISPs. Neither was a telco or broadband services provider. We used THOSE companies to deliver our 100% uptime IP services. Discussion of bandwidth assymetry is begging the question of why we allow the broadband companies to deny us proper service, and assumes this is a fact of the technology or the service. It is not. If you're TL;DRing, jump to "Analogy World" below. The dichotomy of offering a service but only delivering some smaller portion of it for an ever-increasing price INSTEAD OF providing the customer with what he/she wants is how these businesses thrive. The cost of bandwidth is exactly the same on the facilities side regardless of which way the wind blows (suck vs blow, or input vs output or download vs upload, which are all exactly the same only reversed depending on which side you're viewing.) It used to be that circuits were provisioned symmetrically. That was the case from 75 baud modes through 9600 baud modems to 14400bps modems and even 56Kbps ones. Then add in 56K and 64Kbps frame-relay and ISDN B channels and heck why not 2x64Kbps to 128Kbps. ALL symmetrical. Want to pay a little more, get a "high capacity" (HICAP) circuit, aka a T-1 (E-1 in Europe) and enjoy 1.544Mbps (but 1.536 with ESF/B8ZS) or 2.048Mnps for Eu. ALL symmetrical. T-1s not fast enough for ya? Ok, you can get a T-2 and have 6Mbps... or a T-3 (45Mbps) or an OC-1 (50M) or an OC-3 (155M) or an OC-12 (600M). Fortunately technology evolved to remove TDM services and allow Ethernet/FastE,GigE/10G/40G instead. ALL symmetrical. CableCos and TelCos have no technological limitations preventing them from offering symmetric bandwidth. OB DISC 2: I'm also an amateur radio operator with a technician+ license. The radio waves have freely available unlicensed bandwidth, and the licensed links are cheap and easy to acquire in the US. (I have two at my house). The bandwidth provisioned on these are ALL symmetrical. It is true that if you channelize DOCSIS frequencies and decide to allocat them assymetrically, there will be more in one direction than another, but that is simply moving the traditional "oversell model" from being something you can buy your way out of to MAKING IT THE CUSTOMER'S PROBLEM. Imagine in Analogy World a brand new theater capable of showing super-Imax movies in 8K all day long, and it costs only a dollar to get in. The line to enter is immediate with no wait, and free popcorn and a drink are included. HOWEVER to exit you have to stand in line for ten minutes, there's an exit fee, and you can't take the food or drink with you, and sometimes your car isn't there and you have to pay extra to get it back. THAT is what the CableCos and the Wireless broadband providers have created with their FAKE assymetry "requirements." Analogy World #2 has a six-lane highway but during rush hour it's only open in one direction. People wanting to only go that one way are really happy. Those wanting to go in the reverse direction are really unhappy. But hey, six lanes. Most roads have a similar number of lanes in opposite directions. Most Information Superhighways do too. What can you do? You can not buy service from companies that don't want to serve you at the level you deserve. You can see what Dane Cook and Sonic have done, and work to do the same. You can read many of the stories on TD about how community broadband (or municipal broadband) lacks these arbitrary restrictions, and work to get those in YOUR community or municipality. What should you not do? Accept as a given that bandwidth should be metered differently based on whether you're sucking or blowing. For every megabyte you get, SOMEONE is sending a megabyte. For every megabyte YOU send, someone is receiving it. Both of you are paying for transiting that same data, and at least one of you is being throttled.

  • On the post: Elon Musk’s Latest Round Of Bigoted Tweets Likely Cost ExTwitter $75 Million Over The Rest Of 2023

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2023 @ 02:34pm

    Twitter was never anything, and now it's even less so.

    A toilet contains crap, but only until it's flushed. Twitter contains crap and has always done so. There's a reason for that. It was designed to sent short messages containing as little content as possible. If all it had was a "like" button that would suit the majority of its users. By the very nature Twitter attracts people who have nothing to contribute other than "liking" someone else's comment or insulting it. The nature of the medium leaves no room for intelligent dialogue. Elon Musk is doing a great job of taking something worth nothing (for which he paid billions of dollars) and making it worth nothing. That's not bad at all... this way Twitter shareholders got paid for owning all of nothing. This is no different than "investing in crypto." It's worth nothing, but if you can sell it to someone else for more than you paid for it, your "gamble" paid off. In Twitter's case, Elon paid off the Twitter shareholders' gamble. There are three values to a thing. The first is the suggested retail price (or MSRP). Rarely is that paid. Then there is the market valuation of that item, which for a public corporation is stock price x outstanding shares. Finally there is the market price, which is what the buyer and seller agree to. In this case that would be $44B. If Twitter disappeared right this second, none of us would care. Would we? Don't forget to hit Like and Subscribe.

  • On the post: New Israeli Law Makes Consuming ‘Terrorist’ Content A Criminal Offense

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2023 @ 11:41am

    Final solution to the Palestine question

    I don't suppose... hmm?
    I'm without information or belief to answer as to your lack of supposition.

  • On the post: New Israeli Law Makes Consuming ‘Terrorist’ Content A Criminal Offense

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2023 @ 06:08am

    BKFY

    “Most of the current inhabitants of the Gaza Strip have lived their entire lives under the terrorist rule of the Israel Defense Forces.”
    In 2005 the IDF left the Gaza Strip. As per NPR, Most of today's Gaza Strip inhabitants are at the age where all they've known is after 2005. You didn't "FTFY". You just have no knowledge of the facts and history. I get you want to call a lawfully structured army protecting its border a terrorist rule, but then I'm sure you're marching off to Texas to tell Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton they are equal terrorists for protecting TX's southern border. If you want to be clever, that's great. If you want to be wrong but try to appear clever -- congratulations -- you've accomplished your goal.

  • On the post: New Israeli Law Makes Consuming ‘Terrorist’ Content A Criminal Offense

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2023 @ 12:54am

    PLO "books"

    And gathering from the PLO books (published in Beirut c. 1970s) on the Nakba I read, giving the Palestinians’ stories, all they wanted to do was to get back home and take up their lives again
    You might ask yourself why the offers of 97% of the land plus east Jerusalem as its capitol was rejected in 1947, 2000, 2008 by such PLO "leaders" (terrorists) like Arafat and Abbas. There are other less formal occasions at which "no" was still the operative answer. When one abandons one's "home" so the combined Arab countries surrounding it can erase the Jews from the river to the sea... and one loses that fight... one has no "home" to "return to." Further, unlike every other [self]displaced peoples, these people claim 100% right of return not just for themselves, but for all their offspring. The UN is complicit in this "right of return for all offspring" scheme. It's not done for anyone else. It has no basis in law or history. Yet these are the bedtime stories told to each other as they huddle in camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and long to one day somehow take over all of Israel... and have a true one-state solution. The PLO was always and will always be a terrorist organization. That you can read their manifestos doesn't mean the words are anything more than part of a long-standing PR campaign that has now been taken over by Hammas. The offers of peace, land, East Jerusalem, etc. were made in public by Israeli leaders and were soundly rejected in public. You can add as much sugar as you like, but this lemonade is sour.

  • On the post: New Israeli Law Makes Consuming ‘Terrorist’ Content A Criminal Offense

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2023 @ 12:38am

    Stolen property

    unarmed Palestinians going back to check on their stolen property
    That old dog whistle again. Irrelevant to the topic but hard to ignore slurs like this. When the British said yes to emigration and the Europeans and Brits came by the thousands, they also came with millions raised from the rich, and those millions were used to BUY the land. The Arabs were eager to sell, thinking they would out-jew the Jews. Unlike the Arabs the Jews had the written word on their side, including real-estate contracts, deeds, and recordation. The land wasn't stolen. Second, nobody "goes to check on [their] stolen property." Imagine if that made any sense. Analogy: "That guy stole my truck and he drove it to his yard across the street. I'm going to go over there and check on it." This is a well-worne trope, long debunbked, brought up only as yet another anti-semitic anti-Zionist dog whistle. Don't say "they're just Jews being Jews," and instead say they "stole the land" and the innocent land-loving Arabs were "just a goin' on over there to ``check up on it''." In any case, Israeli law is based on Israel's Basic Laws which don't enshrine our (oft violated) Bill of Rights, but rather Israel's right. Military and civilian censors exist and are accepted as are news embargoes. Laws preventing the creation of terrorist ideation, adherence, and allegiance to are also there for that same reason: not to give up the existential fight.

  • On the post: New Israeli Law Makes Consuming ‘Terrorist’ Content A Criminal Offense

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2023 @ 08:31pm

    Re: I hear Netanyahu has a "final solution" to the Palestinian question...

    I hear Netanyahu has a "final solution" to the Palestinian question... I guess “never again” just meant to them, and not in general…
    He has a solution to the Hamas problem. The people living in the Gaza Strip are not all Hamas, not all terrorists or sympathizers, and are now suffering the fate of those who elected the terrorists to "rule" with an iron fist. Netanyahu has not called for genocide or even mass murders. What he did say is that Hamas will not be in power when this war is over, and that they will not be able to wage war on Israel. This is not at all equivalent to either "Never again but for the Pals" nor "From the river to the sea." Israel faces an existential threat one wall over. That's not quite the same as US troops fighting halfway across the world with no risk to the CONUS civilian populace.

  • On the post: New Israeli Law Makes Consuming ‘Terrorist’ Content A Criminal Offense

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2023 @ 04:29pm

    Different land, different law.

    TL;DR - the first three paragraphs summarize my points. The State of Israel does not have the US bill of rights. It has "Basic Laws" which -- to some extent -- serve as the US Constitution does here. That's too offtopic here so if you like read more at https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/3114/A_Constitutional_Revolution_Israel_s_Basic_Laws.pdf Most of the current inhabitants of the Gaza Strip have lived their entire lives under the terrorist rule of Hamas. Hamas came to power by having an election, and after kneecapping and shooting anyone who opposed them, were handily elected as the only party standing (as it were). To people who have been subject to this rule for 20 years (Israel left in 2005) this is all they know. This is all they preach. Those who seek out their "messages" and adhere to them are an existential threat to Israel. Worse, they are a stone's throw away. Worse yet, they also have rockets and IEDs and bombs and rapacious thug animals. Israel is in a perpetual state of readiness for war. Each was is fought on its home soil with the existential threat of genocide and extinction a factor in all such conflicts. It's not like they put troops on planes and carriers and send them to go fight somewhere else around the world. The kind of "force projection" the US does, which keeps civilians out of harm's way, has been attempted by others and not very successfully. As part of its modus operandi, the Israeli government and the military have censors whose sole job is to enforce confidentiality in the media. The "Pentagon Papers", WikiLeaks, etc. would not survive in such a State. When we seek to say that neither side has clean hands, we try and wash the barbaric savagery of rapist baby murdering terrorists with the ill-fated restraint shown by a military that could destroy millions of inhabitants of the Gaza Strip and yet doesn't. Donald Trump famously said about Charlotte that there were "good people on both sides." No, there were not. Nor are there in this conflict. OB DISC: I am an Israeli citizen. I have had my life threatened because of this, the last time being at a Vegas casino where I was attacked in a casino. Cameras everywhere do not stop blind hatred. Security staff trained to escort money carts are not trained to handle hand to hand combat expertise. I carry. I hope one day there will be peace, but I don't expect it in my lifetime so long as Hamas, Daesh (ISIS/ISIL), Putin, Kim Jong Un, and others do what they please and nobody stops them.

  • On the post: FCC Robocall Enforcement A Feckless Mess, Experts Once Again Tell Congress

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2023 @ 09:16pm

    Robocalls are the number one enemy ever

    Discussing robocalls is just ignoring the elephant in the room since April 12th, 1994. That would be the birth date of spam. I've got robocalls handled -- simple Turing test. When our "leaders" suck up to the direct marketing folks spam will remain the number one enemy. Let's ignore it and talk more about robocallers. Do you even have a landline? in-addr? SPF? DMARC? domainkey? Nagh. Spammers just sign up to use the Big Guys (google, microsoft, yahoo) and everyone lets their swill in. The more tools, the merrier. When the elephants fight it is the grass that suffers. That elephant is spam.

  • On the post: NY Times Tried To Block The Internet Archive

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2023 @ 11:14am

    Whataboutism

    Your whataboutism is impressive. This is not a discussion of Menachem Begin in 1945. It's a discussion about the NYT in 2023. Do stop your queefing and get with the program.

  • On the post: NY Times Tried To Block The Internet Archive

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2023 @ 09:09am

    You're not my mommy

    Links required
    They're all here: https://www.lmgtfy.com FO. E

  • On the post: NY Times Tried To Block The Internet Archive

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2023 @ 07:12am

    Hamas "infidel-splains"

    Yes, women complain that men "mansplain" things to them thinking they are incapable of understanding... because they are women. Some of the examples are real, others are not, but certainly bear looking at. Arab news sources (including PR people, spokesmen, etc.) think the rest of the non-Arab world ("infidels") are stupid, so they just say what they like and think it will be accepted. One example is an accurate count of 500 dead within 5 minutes. Nobody can do that. They don't care. They said it. Everyone should publish it. In this case we have three things, one of which has YET TO BE ADDRESSED. 1. Hamas through out of its "shell corporation terrorist organizations" fired a missile that hit a hospital parking lot. 2. Israel was blamed, tho video footage and audio telephone recordings released --against Israli OPSEC rules-- showed otherwise. 3. NYT and others (Al Jazeera, Reuters, AFP) blamed Israel. Al Jazeeer did a half walkback saying Israel's missile interceptor hit the Hamas terrorism rocket. Still with no evidence. When asked to show proof, Hamas said the evidence is all gone like "dissolved into the sea". Amazing those modern munitions that disappear into nothing in the few hours before Hamas lets 3rd parties examine the scene. What's left is people and PR and Media questions as to "What did Israel do"... but the unasked question, and the infidel-splained question is "Hamas launched a missile that killed its own people. It lied about the source of that death, and the number of killed" and NOBODY QUESTIONED THIS. WHY?

  • On the post: NY Times Tried To Block The Internet Archive

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2023 @ 12:58am

    Terrorists (not the Israeli government)

    The Israeli government isn't a terrorist regime, but thank you for trying to lump them in with the terrorists. They sure are retaliating against terror attacks (See e.g. Hamas October 7th), but that's not genocide. You don't get to go murder, rape, burn, pillage, and take civilian hostages and then cry to mama when you're called out on it. That's the difference between savage terrorist dogs, and the Israeli government.

    Of all the government’s in the world that one really should know better.
    The government's what? I'm not sure what that the Israeli government owns that you think "one" should know better [of]. Perhaps you mean "because Israel is the constant target of terrorist attacks its government should know better than to respond?" No. "The government should know better than to protect its citizens... and when it fails, to attempt to ensure the terrorists savages cannot return?" Yes? So confusing, my anonymous misinformed friend.

  • On the post: NY Times Tried To Block The Internet Archive

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2023 @ 10:07pm

    That hospital got blown up by...

    That hospital got blown up by...
    Terrorists. I don't know which card they pulled out of their pocket (izadin el qasam, al aqsa brigades, whatever came out the anus). They operate in the Gaza Strip and they are Hamas. Terrorists. The NYT is showing a bad side of themselves by allowing censorship instead of transparency. It won't change reality. It won't change history. It will change where we put the NYT on the scale of absolutism in "trusted journalism no more."

  • On the post: Our Long, National Taco Tuesday Nightmare Is Finally Over

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2023 @ 03:59pm

    49 states AND 1 = all 50 states

    https://www.axios.com/2023/10/24/taco-tuesday-deals-trademark-taco-bell Finally we are free to have Taco Tuesday ̶®̶ E

  • On the post: Bakery Sues Other Bakery In Trademark Suit Over Unprotectable Elements

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2023 @ 03:29pm

    Hate it when the story ending is [*censored*]

    This was a great writeup. I also enjoyed the followup at: https://www.techdirt.com/2030/01/01/the-utah-cookie-wars-are-over-crumbl-settles-trademark-suit-with-dirty-dough/ which is only available to subscribers, and unfortunately it being a fait accompli in settlment, may never get published. I hope that assumption is false. I'm not a lawyer and find the lack of similarity in marks (a subjective standard) and "likelihood" (how much?) of consumer confusion (how judged?) to be a non-factor. As a juror I'd clearly have brought my John Grisham novel to voire dire and been excused, but had I not, I would have said this is not a violation. I did ask my friend Chad. Chad GeePeaTea. He regurgitates the subjective standards, and then suggested I contact an IP lawyer. Time to eat another blue pill. Happy weekend, all.

    I worked for a cookie company called Originals. I then left and started my own cookie company called Nokoff. Both Originals cookies and Nokoff cookies are sold in boxes that allow the cookies to stay perfectly flat, avoid breakage while shipping, and keep them fresh. Also Nokoff does what Originals does in having fake bites taken out of some cookies. Is there a violation of US trademark laws likely in this circumstance?
    ChaD GeePeaTea
    I am not a lawyer, but I can offer some general information that might be helpful. Trademark infringement depends on several factors, including the similarity of the marks, the likelihood of consumer confusion, and whether there is evidence of intentional copying. In the scenario you described, it's essential to consider the following: Similarity of Marks: If the name "Nokoff" and the packaging design of Nokoff cookies are very similar to "Originals" cookies, this could potentially raise concerns about trademark infringement. Likelihood of Consumer Confusion: If consumers are likely to be confused and think that Nokoff cookies are somehow related to or endorsed by Originals, this could be a significant issue. Intent: If there is evidence to suggest that you intentionally copied elements of Originals' branding, this could strengthen Originals' case if they decide to pursue legal action. Distinctiveness of the Elements: If the packaging and the practice of having fake bites taken out of cookies are unique and distinguishable features of Originals' branding, this might be relevant. To determine whether there's a potential violation of US trademark laws, it's advisable to consult with a qualified intellectual property attorney. They can provide you with a more accurate assessment based on the specific details of your situation and can help you take the necessary steps to ensure that your business operations are compliant with trademark laws. If Originals believes that their trademark rights are being infringed, they may choose to take legal action to protect their brand and seek remedies for any potential harm.

  • On the post: Professor Wrongly Blames Apple For CSAM

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2023 @ 04:17pm

    Saving some reading time there...

    Now if you’ll excuse me I need to go make sure my x-ray scanner is prepared to scan the kids candy to find all the things in them to kill them & my mini chemistry set to check for fentynyl.
    No need to worry about the chemistry set. Snapchat will do it all for you since they're responsible. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/18/snapchat-sued-overdose-deaths You can really add to "the danger to children is from their own home or parents" and not worry about the X-ray candy because poison doesn't show up in X-Rays, and ... the kid's own father did it. https://www.nydailynews.com/2016/10/29/candy-man-killer-dad-serves-his-own-son-a-poisoned-treat-on-halloween-in-1974/ I still think the biggest problem isn't having kids (which of course causes CSAM) but rather all crime. Our society has become immune to the immense amount of crime, and crime victims, so now we look for the truly outrageous things, and now we have to stop having children.

Next >>