gilroy0’s Techdirt Profile


About gilroy0

gilroy0’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 13th, 2012 @ 5:53am

    Oh, NOW they've done it

    They've honked off Disney? Now regime change is inevitable.
  • Jul 7th, 2012 @ 5:36am

    We have a winner!

    >> If Verizon's argument here prevailed, you could potentially argue that any regulation that restricted how a company acted was a form of a "taking." But that's silly.

    This, of course, is the end game for the corporations that are in the process of buying our government.
  • Aug 11th, 2011 @ 5:45am

    I expect better than this on TechDirt

    # of tellers (1985): 485,000
    US population (1985): 237.9 M
    US population (2002): 287.7 M
    Expected # of tellers in 2002: 582,000
    Actual # of tellers in 2002: 527,000
    "Missing" tellers: 55,000

    Source for US pop: (Google visualization of US Census data)
    Reasoning: Bank services can reasonably be modeled as a per-capita business. More people require more services. Of course there is a network effect but for a first cut it's not a bad assumption. (And one would expect that, as population grows, the network effect would imply more bank services required.)

    If things were the same, we would expect nearly 60,000 more tellers in banks than we saw. Something changed and reduced the tellers per capita. It doesn't seem outrageous to think that it might in fact be the ATMs that reduced the need for human tellers. I have used a human teller approximately zero times in ten years, and I know I am not alone. Are banks really still paying for all of the tellers they would have? As population grows and new areas open to development, do banks really construct new branches ... or do they plant a lot more ATMs and keep their branches more centralized?

    I really do expect better on Techdirt than mere "Look, a number changed!"
  • May 28th, 2011 @ 5:10am

    Genuine question

    One of the counter-volleys is that the story was not about the NYSE but about some other unrelated hedge fund. Here's my question: The image used is pretty iconic for "financial markets". The NYSE trading floor is used by lots of financial cable channels as "the" symbol of the capitalist economy -- and the NYSE is quite happy to let them. (For example, it allows and encourages coverage of the opening and closing bell.)

    Could an argument be made that the trademark conveyed by the image has been turned generic, a la the fears of Band-aid Brand bandages, Kleenex tissues, or Xerox copying? Can an image become generic?
  • May 27th, 2011 @ 4:05am

    (untitled comment)

    I imagine this has as much to do with degrading the 2D experience (thus, comparatively, heightening the 3D experience and justifying all those extra $$ charged) as with actual piracy.
  • May 26th, 2011 @ 4:06am

    Rookie mistake

    The judge is clearing mistaking the map for the territory. Because the shape of Tyson's face is wildly different than the shape of Helm's, there is no way to actually copy the tattoo from the former to the latter. They're different because the topology is different. Helm's tattoo might be "inspired" by Tyson's but they're not the same. (Just look at the picture.)
  • May 21st, 2011 @ 5:54am

    Re: (as Bernard Gilroy)

    Big corporation tries to censor you, realizes it looks bad, and tries to buy back its good name. You stand up for your right to free speech, maintain your independence, and show you don't need big corporation's guilt money.

    Hmmm. Seems pretty empowered to me.
  • Apr 23rd, 2011 @ 5:25am

    Re: Re: Come on TechDirt...

    Isn't the whole point of copyright that this is not a "competitive market"? There is no direct substitute for this book -- either you're reading Economics in One Less or you're not. (Obviously, this frays at the edges, because perhaps there is a different economics book one might consider instead, so there is some limited fungibility.)

    I think that the reason people object so strongly to the original article is this: Price is set by the intersection of supply and demand. True. But demand is the measure of the utility of the product to the purchaser. While it isn't obvious, it's certainly possible that the added conveniences of the Kindle edition make it sufficiently more valuable than the paperback. I will admit that, as much as I am staying away from ebooks due to DRM, I have all but stopped buying paperbacks because I don't want to invest the space in my apartment to keep them and I hate throwing out books. (Yes, the reseale market is the way to go but I haven't sat down to do that yet.)

    I don't think it's helpful on either side to say that some just "doesn't get it". It's clear Mike grasps economics but his highly dismissive attitude was incorrect in this way. You can only a priori compare the paperback to Kindle if they're the same product and they are not, because the Kindle version has features the paperback lacks.
  • Apr 15th, 2011 @ 4:04am

    Unintended consequences...

    If throttling Spotify drives people back to piracy, and if -- as often alleged by the recording industry -- every file downloaded is a lost sale (bear with me here), and if people who cause lost sales are (again, according to the recording industry) liable for massive damages to make up for the "missing" money...
    then shouldn't the recording industry sue itself into oblivion for inducing massive copyright violations?
  • Apr 2nd, 2011 @ 5:03am

    not quite

    Your line
    This, however, assumes that consumers are stupid, and I think Hollywood may quickly discover that consumers aren't quite as stupid as the studio execs think.
    should read
    This, however, assumes that consumers are stupid, and I think Hollywood may quickly discover that consumers aren't quite as stupid as the studio execs are.
  • Feb 26th, 2011 @ 6:42am

    Re: See

    See, again -- this is why the Sandmen in Logan's Run had it right...
  • Dec 3rd, 2010 @ 4:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence please :)

    But just the fact that such information is getting released leads the government to shut down lines of communication that enable such corruption.
    Except that the net effect could very well be to drive the colluders to inventing "better" ways to hide what they're doing. The likelihood that secret colluders will suddenly stop colluding seems small -- all the incentives for their actions remain. In fact, you could argue that a massive and apparently indiscriminate data dump works against the alleged principles, as the important stuff is swamped and the cost of being revealed is minimized.
  • Nov 6th, 2010 @ 5:27am


    And of course, this could be seen as pro-Apple, as it reinforces the "there's an app for that" meme -and- the magic of the prefixed "i" (as in iPogo and iPad)...
  • Sep 24th, 2010 @ 3:54am

    Re: Close enough

    And the voters he hopes to represent.

    Sadly, he might be right on both counts.
  • Aug 26th, 2010 @ 9:04am

    It all makes sense in context.

    It's very simple. When your business model depends on enticing artists into making deals insanely not in their favor, you have to assume that -everyone else-'s business model works the same way. So artists would sign with DMX because they wouldn't understand that they'd be making less, because DMX would cook the books to obscure how much money is being siphoned away by a generally-useless middleman.

    You know -- just like BMI does now.
  • Jul 30th, 2010 @ 5:14am


    His article is available for free. :)

    Snarking aside, I would never have heard of this guy if his content had been behind a paywall.
  • Jul 29th, 2010 @ 6:24am

    But take away the false claims and baseless attacks...

    ... and he has nothing left to say. So you are in fact silencing him.

  • Jul 22nd, 2010 @ 5:38am

    Didn't Colbert already cover BP photoshopping the spill?

    Why, yes, yes he did... on July 10.

    When the news is starting to follow the parody news sites, we've truly disappeared down the rabbit hole...
  • Jul 7th, 2010 @ 6:05am

    (untitled comment)

    This isn't to say that ticket scalpers and resellers who buy up all the tickets aren't necessarily a problem

    Why are they a problem? I mean, I understand the annoyance factor. But doesn't the existence of scalpers basically indicate that the venue underpriced the ticket? I'm no free-market ideologue, but I've never understood why scalping is problem legally or morally.
  • May 21st, 2010 @ 4:23am

    Re: Re: Re:

    the other choice was no photo at all. And that other choice was the right one.

More comments from gilroy0 >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it