Ehud Gavron 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1631) comment rss

  • On the post: Police Union VP Says Woman Killed By Cop Is Only Worth $11,000

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2023 @ 02:48pm

    B&E

    Can we fucking NOT break and enter into police buildings.
    Agreed! However, to be fair, OP said:
    break into and trash that departments computer network

  • On the post: Daily Deal: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2023 @ 11:18pm

    5G of operating systems

    "Designed for the world of hybrid work, Windows 11 can help you work more simply and seamlessly from anywhere." Sure, and 5G will bring life-saving neurosurgery and cancer-ending medicine. Y'all wanna buy this really good oil? Made it from snake.

  • On the post: First Of Potentially Many Google Antitrust Claims Goes To Trial

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2023 @ 04:13pm

    Google doesn't innovate. (???Wut???)

    A story on NPR this morning included choice quotes from an antitrust opiner who suggested (I mean insisted) that - Google doesn't innovate - It doesn't innovate because it's the only search engine - Its dominant status means it "can walk instead of run", and - If Google had to really compete, their search would have included a ChatGPT like interface years ago, and that's why - Google should be forced to give up its monopolistic anticompetitive ways If you parse it you'll see that - Google is damned for NOT having put in an LLVM query engine (stupidly called "AI") to its search functions. - Had they done so, these antitrust opinionaries would claim Google was merely cementing its dominant role - Pretending Google is the only search engine is like pretending that "all PCs run Windows". Neither is true and unfortunately these Word-using neophytes know nothing of DuckDuckGo, Bing, or other search engines. Likely they don't even know how to select a search engine or what makes one "better [for whom] than another. They all talked about how the US DoJ ****ed over Microsoft two decades ago so they can use another win. That isn't a criteria for filing suit. They also talked about the DoJ having a budget of $250M but Google has trillions. Also not relevant to the worth of filing suit. I'm sure somewhere in the last four years I've heard the term "Witchhunt" bandied around, but only by hallucinating damage-causing deranged lunatics. This campaign to go after Google seems like a "witchhunt" for real. Google has innovated quite a bit, and everything they've done is now being used to claim they've cemented their monopoly. That includes Android (DoJ isn't familiar with IOS?). Google software "lock in" (DoJ not familiar with Apple's "Walled Garden"?) Google's hardware products (yes, glassholes really does show us total monopoly. Someone go tell FaceBook and Apple that glasses are out.) Meetings, Duo, Calendar, total monopoly. (Quick someone go tell Zoom that one.) I'm no apologist for Google, and I have some friends who work there. I also use some of their products and services, as I do Apple's (ForeFlight only runs on IOS devices) and Microsoft's (can't program my BC436HP without it... in a VM) and Sony (GT on PS) and Roku (ten on my account at last check) and so on. None of those have prevented me from using their competitors. Sure, I can't run GT4 on an XBOX, but I can't carry a new Home Depot fridge in my coupe either. That's not a monopoly on trucks or fridge-haulers or a Home Depot problem, or a lockin from my car manufacturer. Time for the US DoJ to go after the true monopolists. Karl Bode has made part of his career clear at pointing out who they are and what damage they keep causing. They've set US Internet service, availability, reachability, and affordability beyond every other modern country... and we invented the damn thing in 1973.

  • On the post: Police Union VP Says Woman Killed By Cop Is Only Worth $11,000

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2023 @ 03:47pm

    Cops' lives are worth a lot. Everyone else, worthless.

    Pennsylvania hosted a foreign murderer who deigned to commit the same crime in PA. He was tried, convicted, sentenced to, and entered prison. This is far as you can get from someone accused of a crime, a person not accused of a crime, or the police who uphold the law. That person escaped prison and a reward for information was offered. Initially it was $10,000 but after a week of not being useful cops around to apprehend him, the reward was increased to the amazingly huge sum of $25,000 to apprehend this convicted twice-murderer. In California someone shot a LEO. The initial reward was immediately set and offered at $250,000. This is in LA, where the Sheriff's department is so wholesome they've had a DoJ consent decree in place for -decades-. Is this so important - 10x as important - to find one shooter vs a double murderer. No, that's looking at it the wrong way. The double murderer just killed "civilians"*. The deputy's killer killed a LEO. That's 10x worse. E * Civilian is anyone who is not military. While LEOs and first-responders like to pretend they're some elite non-civilian cells of action, they're untrained savages that commit heinous crimes, lie to back each other up, and perpetrate violence on "civilians"... you know, people without SWAT trucks, bulletproof vests, automatic weapons they can never seem to hit anything with despite spraying bullets everywhere, and NVGs. Because you know, "it's hard to see minorities at night without them." Disgusting. Vile. American Excellence at its best.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2023 @ 12:57pm

    Human liquidation

    I don't believe human beings should be liquidated at all...
    Well clearly there are a lot of people who don't think anyone over the age of negative nine months should be harmed. We call those "Conservative" but really there are better words. Once the fetus is born, those same people rush to kill him or her at the first sign of criminal behavior or being born not white or privileged. That too is what we call "Conservative" although really there are better word. You don't believe human beings should be liquidated, and as reductio ad absurdem I offer: Hitler. If not Hitler I offer Robert J Oppenheimer. If not him how about Temüjin? Anyone who is responsible for mass killings shouldn't really continue to be part of our society, right? Or maybe I'm wrong? Can't really tell. I'm not a rich fat white conservative ahole pretending to be trying to get into heaven while making everyone else have to suffer my boorish lack of education and utter myopic selfishness. I'll try harder. Right after all the bad people are liquidated.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2023 @ 08:44pm

    How many “innocent” people have been judicially murdered in the U.S. since the 1970s, pray tell? Maybe two dozen (max)? 1% error rate seems fine!
    Why don't you stop cowering as an anonymous coward and give your real name and address. I'll make sure you're framed for a capital crime within 180 days and then we can talk about whether 1% is "fine" for a standard for false murder of an alleged criminal or "fine" for removing scum from the planet. Put your personal safety where your putup-or-shutup fails, genius.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2023 @ 07:49pm

    To use English or to butcher it

    Ask any black person what their experience is, I’m sure they all had it “coming”.
    I can't imagine how hard you must have worked to get three grammatical errors into a run on sentence that short. Fortunately we're here not to discuss you, your illiteracy, or the like. We're actually discussing the fourth amendment, K9 officers, and paws. Paws while you think up your clever reparte.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2023 @ 06:22pm

    International drug traffickers and racketeers are disgusting, evil, and irredeemable, and they should be liquidated. Do you disagree?
    Techdirt isn't about my opinion, but thanks for asking. None of what you say is correct.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2023 @ 06:21pm

    Children making absolutisms

    International drug traffickers and racketeers are disgusting, evil, and irredeemable, and they should be liquidated. Do you disagree?
    Yes. I don't know where you think this techdirt thread is about what I agree or disagree with, but I assure you -- it's not. What's a drug trafficer, newbie? Is it someone who sells marijuana? That's legal in almost half the US. Is it LSD? That's legal in almost half the globe. Is it the sassafras root from which real root beer is made? That's unlawful to possess in the US but legal in other countries. If I bring a regular old-fashioned root beer from those other countries am I one of these drug trafficers? Am I evil because I like real root beer? I think not, but again, this TD thread is not about what I think or how you want to pigeonhole the people on this board who are more than just "Just Say No To Drugzezes." Moron.
    and irredeemable, and they should be liquidated.
    Redemption is a Christian concept. Keep religion out of this. Liquidation is a nice term for murder. Go see the sixth commandment, heathen. Truly this is a discussion of the naive attempting to lecture on society, religion, and constitutional rights... to those who actually didn't sign up for a MoronClass. (Like MasterClass only ... not taught by masters.)

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2023 @ 05:09pm

    Give up YOUR rights any time you like. You don't get to give up MY rights.

    Nevertheless, what I’m asking is this: why would Tim prefer
    Nevertheless it's not about Tim nor is it about you. We all have rights, and you don't get to tell me (or Tim or anyone) which of OUR rights you wish to disclaim or delimit or excise. So please shut your mouthhole before you make it into another expression of your other hole. ...
    why is this a problem?
    Because you're that idiot who says "If I'm not guilty I don't mind being searched" and too stupid to google why that doesn't work and why we have constitutional rights to prevent that search. We don't need copball-lickers like you working to undermine those rights. ...
    [though clearly you’re disturbed
    Don't try and make it about other posters. You've already attacked the article author and the responding reader. Perhaps you should go look in the mirror and see the real problem. It's you, and others like you happy to "Sure you can look in my trunk, officer, because I ain't done nothing wrong" anytime you like. You are not welcome to extinguish my freedoms or rights. That includes the fourth amendment. Go suck copballs, and have a great night.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2023 @ 08:36am

    Cops and the public view in the US

    Given that cops aren’t allowed to use infrared cameras from public property
    That's not a given. Cops CAN use infrared cameras, cameras mounted on utility poles that you and I are not allowed to climb on or install on, AND use UAVs (aka "drones") to picture and take videos of things not visible from public spaces. Our 4AM rights are being eroded through the courts being lackadaiscal about how technology can allow LEOs to do that, and the things YOU think are "a given" they can't do, they keep pushing and trying and prying until that tiny crack becomes a loophole they can drive their SWAT truck through.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2023 @ 03:35am

    Willem's ratio

    Someone isn’t familiar with Blackstone’s ratio
    It's a line in the sand. IFF cops were honest... IFF prosecutors didn't put through process for political reasons... IFF the Brady Rule was followed... and IFF it wasn't for so much "years later he was released after evidence showed his innocence" THEN we could debate Blackstone's ratio and maybe reach an agreement as to that number. Do I think 9 lawful convictions for every 1 wrongfully convicted is FAIR or JUST? I personally do not. Do I think 1:19 (5% false conviction) is fair? I personally do not. My threshold is more like 1/10000 (0.01%). That is not a negotiable from which I'll go lower. That's my absolute [personal] lowest. I really want to see 100% and I'd settle for 5 9s but 3 9s is the negotiable minimum. Today's LEOs are crooked corrupt stinking pieces of crap flouting the laws they pretend to enforce, pretending they are military, using SWAT vehicles for everything from "that guy didn't pay for his coffee at Starbucks" to "That lady took a purse from WalMart" and "We'll get that kid that brought a pocket knife and a twig to whittling practice at school." and "damn those civilians." COPS ARE CIVILIANS. They just play military. Today's prosecutors are corrupt players of the hands of rotten cards dealt them by the above. If they can't indict a ham sandwich they'll arrange for a grand jury to do it being given a one-sided story and say "Well that's how the grand jury system works." Sure, and that's how they lynched minorities in the South for hundreds of years, but that doesn't make it FAIR or JUST or LEGAL. It's a screwed up system. Debating the ratio is meaningless until the system is reformed. You'll note nobody is talking about that. Take some big paws off my car. My fourth amendment rights don't stop anywhere, and that includes when your "doggy officer" invades them.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2023 @ 10:24pm

    Innocent citizens might be a bit inconvenienced
    That's why we have the constitution's 4th amendmend right. It's not about "timc" or whatever your weird generalization is. You're just someone itching for an argument who came ill-prepared and didn't do his homework. Morons like you aside, the point is clear to most, but not apparently you:
    Genuinely don’t understand this perspective and why TD publishes
    Your lack of understanding is something you can work to correct. In the meanwhile, the rest of us don't have to listen to your pussyshitting words.

  • On the post: Another Day, Another SLAPP Threat From A ‘Wellness’ Influencer Against Someone Reviewing Their ‘Masterclass’

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2023 @ 05:39pm

    Eye exercises

    Eye exercises may help improve your vision? What is it that Samantha Lotus does to exercise her teeth to A-1 whiteness exactly? https://www.colgate.com/content/dam/cp-sites/oral-care/oral-care-center/global/occ/cosmetic-dentistry/teeth-whitening/articles/tooth-shades.jpg Is it some sort of "teeth exercises"? Or is it she doesn't smoke, drink coffee, cola, partake of citrus fruit... or... it's ok to use chemicals to whiten one's teeth but not use glasses to correct one's corneal imperfections? Inquiring minds want to know. Eye want to know.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether A Drug Dog Touching A Car With Its Paws Violates The Fourth Amendment

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2023 @ 05:33pm

    Idaho...

    Looks like in Idaho this behavior is on paws.

  • On the post: Streamer In Japan Gets 2 Years Jail Time For Uploading Let’s Plays, Anime Spoilers

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2023 @ 09:25pm

    Different land, different law.

    Skipping the game aspect of it, laws are different in different places. People, their values, mores, and societal norms are different. For example, there's no porn genre I'm aware of called "American schoolgirl" but lots of "Japanese schoolgirl." Similarly, the culture in Japan doesn't lead to the two-party infighting and "No matter what this guy did, we won't vote against him because he's in our party thing." Add to that "OUR copyright laws are so draconian we WILL silence that tongue" vs our 1st Amendment right. To judge another culture by our laws is part of what we do. Russia is authoritarian. Iran puts people in prison for the wrong outfit they wore. Saudi Arabia beheads people. UAE puts a couple frollicking on a beach in prison. Turkey puts teachers, scientists (not a profession), and protestors in prison. In the US we're blameless. Cops kill PoCs. Texas governor puts razor wire in river to stop "invasion". Florida governor says slaves got useful job skills so stop whining about slavery. Utah says if you rape your daughter-wire it's not rape because she married you. Scientologists... (Danny Masterson, need I say more). All our cultures have different laws, rules, mores, and values (and not in that order). Some of us say "Well I'm an American and these are our values." They typically have an (R) after their name, which means Rookie at the Indy 500. Some of us say that some of these things we cannot abide. My thanks that the ACLU, EFF, CDT, SPLC, and other fight for those rights. Japan has its laws. They are not our laws. Don't violate JAPAN'S LAWS IN JAPAN. Don't rip off Iranian political signs off hotels in Iran [Don't fucking GO TO IRAN]. Don't insult Recep Erdogan in Turkey (or in the whole world if we start cowtowring to EVERYONE'S laws EVERYWHERE.) Glad to be here. Love having my rights. To those who want to take them away from me, Skeeter said it best.

  • On the post: UFC Opposes Trademark App For Pillow Fighting Championship League Over Logo

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2023 @ 12:05am

    Mike Lindell

    Since it's been brought up, we can pretty much accept as a given that from now on nobdoy can use the words "The Ultimate Pillow Guy Stupid Comment" due to the words "The", "Ultimate", "Pillow", and "Stupid Comment", all of which are par for the course for the UFC, Pillow being a commonly confused word for "Fighting" of course. I can see sorority party movies avoiding pillow fights going forward. Whatever they come up with (Ultimate Tickle Fight, maybe?) will just be begging for UFC to expand the "alleged synonyms for Fighting."

  • On the post: Kansas Cops Raid Small Town Newspaper In Extremely Questionable ‘Criminal Investigation’

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2023 @ 12:44pm

    Embarrassing to put out such a press release... and not proofread it first.

    "The Marion Kansas Police Department will nothing less." Perhaps a verb like "do" would have helped this sentence. At this point until they can fold their arms and blink, or wiggle their noses... their "will" is not a factor.

  • On the post: Copyright Self Censorship Denies Us Another Updated Version Of An Abandoned Game

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2023 @ 04:00pm

    When the owner won't step up...

    "That’s because the rights for the game are a complicated mess, somewhat akin to the whole No One Lives Forever fiasco. That same tangled rights mess is also likely why the game, despite calls for a remake or updated version for modern hardware, isn’t happening either."
    Then someone (who has more IT skills than I do) pirate it and release it. After all, nobody is going to be able to claim clean ownership. They fucked with it till nobody knows who owns it and that same they can no no longer have standing to sue.

  • On the post: Misunderstanding Locks Amazon User Out Of ‘Smart’ Home Voice Control For A Week

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 22 Jun, 2023 @ 01:21pm

    So if you "act inappropriately" your house turns against you?

    “In this case, we learned through our investigation that the customer did not act inappropriately..." What the ex-customer did with what they purchase is none of Amazon's business and provides ZERO justification to disable ANYTHING. The excuse that [para] "We found out he did nothing wrong so we turned his house on" suggests Amazon "thinks" it can turn off your house if you say the wrong this (whatever words that is this week.) Outrageous and probably a breach of contract. I actually read EULAs but don't own any IoT stuff but maybe someone else can see if there's a contract clause that says "...and later on if you upset someone then you're cut off." E

Next >>