Gwiz 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4547) comment rss

  • On the post: August 17 – 23, 1997

    Gwiz ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2013 @ 07:36am

    Re: Testing

    Still testing

  • On the post: August 17 – 23, 1997

    Gwiz ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2013 @ 07:35am

    Testing

    Just testing a problem I'm experiencing with the comments, html tags and the preview page. :)

    Testing....1.....2.....testing.....

  • On the post: Justin Amash: Mike Rogers Isn't Overseeing The Intelligence Community, He's Conspiring To Cover Up Its Activities

    Gwiz ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2013 @ 01:02pm

    Re:

    Hey, hey Boo Boo. It's smarter than the average bear.

  • On the post: Justin Amash: Mike Rogers Isn't Overseeing The Intelligence Community, He's Conspiring To Cover Up Its Activities

    Gwiz ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2013 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Actually, anyone who reads infowars.com or whatreallyhappened KNOWS

    Actually, anyone who reads infowars.com or whatreallyhappened KNOWS



    Is that where you are getting your information from?? Too funny.

    But, thanks anyways Blue. This actually provides some insight as to why you comment the way you do.

  • On the post: Schools Ban Tag, Cartwheels And 'Unstructured Play:' The Inevitable Outcome Of Unrealistic Promises And Expectations [UPDATED]

    Gwiz ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2013 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: You miss a crucial point in the story -- TECHDIRT ALWAYS DOES!

    And there will not be even a whoops! They'll just go on as if didn't totally fail!


    [UPDATE: As is pointed out in the comments, Weber Middle School's ban on balls and other activities is "temporary," due to construction occuring at the school.]

    Blue is wrong.......again.

  • On the post: London Police Order Registrars To Shut Down A Bunch Of Websites Without Any Legal Basis; Threaten Registrars If They Don't Comply

    Gwiz ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2013 @ 08:19am

    Re: Re: Fucking Weasels

    Whoops. Emphasis apparently not mine. I thought I bolded this part: "... should not be included on public facing websites,..."



    Anyone else having trouble with HTML tags and the comment preview lately?

  • On the post: London Police Order Registrars To Shut Down A Bunch Of Websites Without Any Legal Basis; Threaten Registrars If They Don't Comply

    Gwiz ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2013 @ 08:17am

    Re: Fucking Weasels

    Not only that either. There's this legalese disclamer at the very end:

    This document uses the United Kingdom's Government Protective Marking System (GPMS) and has been graded as NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED. There are no specific requirements for storage or disposal and it can be considered as safe for wide distribution within your organisation. This can extend to its use for training or awareness programmes for staff. However, unless otherwise specified, this information is not intended for general public dissemination and should not be included on public facing websites, external mailing lists, social media or other outlets routinely used by you to deliver information to the public. We therefore request that you risk manage any onward dissemination in a considered way.
    (C) 2013 Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit
    Emphasis mine.

    Mike might not want to risk any trips to London anytime soon.

  • On the post: The DHS Has Been Using A Fake Mexican Constitution Article To Deport US Citizens For 35 Years

    Gwiz ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2013 @ 07:32am

    Re: WHERE'S the tech or economics in this? Here's your charter:

    WHERE'S the tech or economics in this? Here's your charter:


    Wahhhh! Cry me a river, Blue.

    It's Mike's blog and he has sole discretion over what it contains. Period. If you don't like it, the door is over there and don't let it hit you in the ass, k?

  • On the post: Intellectual Ventures' Evil Knows No Bounds: Buys Patent AmEx Donated For Public Good… And Starts Suing

    Gwiz ( profile ), 08 Oct, 2013 @ 11:56am

    Re: The patent system as such isn't broken: corporatists use it.

    Now, college boy, where are your specific terms for eliminating useless and trivial patents? For many years, you've touted alleged expertise and ranted about mis-uses, but where are your bullet points outlining what's good about patents and should be preserved, or how to bring bad corporate actors under control? Kibitzer.





    RTFW* Blue!




    Search Techdirt for the words "patent" & "fix"




    *Read The Fucking Website

  • On the post: How Is Consumer Watchdog 'Helping' When It's Trying To Destroy Services Consumers Find Useful

    Gwiz ( profile ), 08 Oct, 2013 @ 11:04am

    Re: Re:

    He's the laughingstock of the web.




    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    -Mahatma Gandhi

    Based on your comment, Mike has already reached the second stage. Looks like he's doing it right to me.

  • On the post: The Unintended Consequences Of The Shutdown Of Silk Road

    Gwiz ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2013 @ 09:01am

    Re: Re: "somewhat amazing it lasted as long as it did" = CIA op.

    ...it's also a fact that failing to condemn something does not in any way imply that one is in favor of that thing.


    Also the fact that being in favor of decriminalizing drug use does not equate to being in favor of drug use in general makes Blue's statement even more silly.

    Since I am of the belief that the money saved by not funding the "War on Drugs" would be much more than the money spent on rehabilitation and treatment, his argument about society having to foot the bill for all the drug users kind of falls flat, doesn't it?

  • On the post: The Unintended Consequences Of The Shutdown Of Silk Road

    Gwiz ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2013 @ 08:42am

    Re: "somewhat amazing it lasted as long as it did" = CIA op.

    BUT let's go to the follow-on effects of legalizing drugs in today's social milieu: the number of stoopid kids who ruin body and mind would then shoot up -- and they'd demand public funded health care due to their moral failure. So the current suppression is also justified by utility, besides that just allowing people to be as stoopid as they wish is not at all satisfying to the producers who bear the costs.


    The amount of stupid in that paragraph is astounding. If you want "real" facts and not just Blue's uneducated guesses on a subject he obviously knows very little about check out Glenn Greenwald's white paper on the subject:

    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

  • On the post: Technologists To NSA Review Group: Don't Forget About The Interests Of Non-US Persons

    Gwiz ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2013 @ 11:03am

    That's the nature of the law (and the fact that non-US persons aren't actually under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution in the first place).


    Are you sure about this Mike?

    I thought that the Constitution protected everyone regardless of citizenship with the parts that are worded with the term "people" instead of "citizen". This would include the Bill of Rights. Obviously, other parts of the Constitution that are specifically worded with the term "citizen" wouldn't apply to non-citizens.

    Volokh argues this point here: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1235007104.shtml

    The EFF also alludes to this argument with this statement:

    The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches whether or not you are a citizen. In particular, the exclusionary rule applies to all criminal defendants, including non-citizens. However, the exclusionary rule does not apply in immigration hearings, meaning that the government may introduce evidence from an illegal search or seizure in those proceedings. Source

  • On the post: National Insecurity: How The NSA Has Put The Internet And Our Security At Risk

    Gwiz ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2013 @ 10:12am

    As that article notes, the NSA is known as a major buyer of exploits sold on the market -- but that also means that every single one of those exploits is known by non-NSA employees, and the idea that only the NSA is exploiting those is laughable.


    I've been wondering about these deals to purchase exploits since I first heard about them. Is there some sort of agreement or something that prevents these sellers from reselling the exact same exploit to the "bad guys" after selling it to the NSA?

    Isn't it possible that one of the "bad guys" could use an exploit that the NSA is using to exploit the NSA itself?

  • On the post: Patent Troll Intellectual Ventures Running Out Of Cash; Looking For $3 Billion From Investors

    Gwiz ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2013 @ 10:53am

    Re: "many of the big tech companies who signed up early on"

    If you support pure capitalism, you must somehow justify Miley Cyrus getting millions while productive laborers live in poverty.


    So what's your solution then Blue? Since you always fail to back up your "tax the rich" notion with any specific details, I simply cannot consider it as a viable solution.

    Do you actually have any solutions or just rallying cries?

  • On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs

    Gwiz ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2013 @ 08:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Technology is reducing the job count relative to population....

    Is it really? Then why haven't we experienced a 90% unemployment rate when 90% of the agricultural jobs disappeared over the last 400 years.


    .... and further, is driving salaries down at the same time.

    And if technology is also driving the cost of essential goods down, why are the larger salaries even required?

  • On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs

    Gwiz ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2013 @ 01:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not that simple

    How about bank ATMs' as an example then.

    Yes, ATM's have reduced the number of bank tellers at each branch. But, the reduction in costs has also allowed banks to open more branches and as a result there are more bank tellers employed then before ATM's became mainstream.

  • On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs

    Gwiz ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2013 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Luddites have no vision

    ou think those robot-related jobs will offset the millions of jobs rendered obsolete by robots?



    Maybe not completely, but close. Somebody has to design, produce, service, etc. those millions of robots don't they?

    Think about it in terms of human history, in the last four centuries we have gone from 95% of the population working in agricultural industries to something like 2% in developed counties nowadays. We don't have a 93% unemployment rate do we?

  • On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs

    Gwiz ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2013 @ 11:44am

    Re: Yes, but those jobs are now in China at slave wages.

    If money manipulators weren't allowed to skim unlimited profits and control the economy, then industry and invention could again fluorish.


    Once again you toss out this supposed "solution" of yours without any indication of how you propose to achieve such a goal.

    Maybe if you'd answer some simple questions that I've asked of you previously instead of running off to nay-say the next Techdirt article, your notion might actually get some support.

    Those questions are here:

    https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130923/17400624628/posturing-over-patent-reform-shows-how-young-companies-innovate-while-old-companies-litigate.shtml#c152

  • On the post: NSA Defenders Need To Learn: Trust Is Something You Earn, Not Legislate

    Gwiz ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2013 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Post from OOTB

    Lawless anarchy sounds good to me.

    Yeah. Sure. Sounds good right up until the point where you come across someone with a larger arsenal than you who wants all your stuff. Then it's not so good.

Next >>