John Snape’s Techdirt Profile


About John Snape

John Snape’s Comments comment rss

  • May 12th, 2018 @ 8:32am

    (untitled comment)

    I wonder if she can get a restraining order against the CPB and not have to go through their gauntlet anymore.

  • May 7th, 2018 @ 6:25am

    Liability Insurance

    Surgeons have liability insurance, so if they mess up they can compensate their patients. If they mess up too much, they are no longer surgeons, since their premiums will skyrocket.

    It's time for all law enforcement officers to get the same. Instead of government entities paying out settlements, the insurance for the officers will pay out. When their behavior is too egregious, they will no longer be able to afford insurance and they'll no longer be a police officer. And if they're shunted off to a different department a few counties over, their premiums will follow.

    Good police officers will keep their low premiums and keep their jobs.

  • Apr 25th, 2018 @ 8:09pm

    (untitled comment)

    I had started putting it together when I saw it on Ars Technica, but now I realize I won't have to.

    I have the Hunt for El Chapo game on my computer, maybe I should put that one together?

  • Apr 16th, 2018 @ 6:38am

    How is this any different?

    How is this any different from a suspect writing in code?

    And why should law enforcement get every single piece of evidence they demand? They don't have to solve every single crime; no one should expect them to.

  • Mar 23rd, 2018 @ 8:06pm

    Not really seeing the issue

    Did Best Buy say Huawei is spying and that's why they are no longer buying from them?

    I imagine it could be a bunch of different things, from finding a better price from another company to just wanting to stock a different type of phone. Maybe the CEO of Huawei said something to the CEO of Best Buy and he was insulted. Who knows!

    If Best Buy said they'd no longer carry Monster Cables would there be a hand-wringing story from Techdirt about how horrible it is?

  • Mar 11th, 2018 @ 1:32pm


    So which of these options makes Racist a protected class? "sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation."

    Is he claiming it is a mental disability or a religion?

    Probably sexual orientation, since he only wants to have sex with those of his own race.

  • Feb 23rd, 2018 @ 9:44pm

    (untitled comment)

    In the annals of stupid legislation, California...

    You could start any discussion of California law these days with this admonition.

  • Feb 22nd, 2018 @ 7:34am

    Freedom is messy

    The more freedom we have the messier it is. When people are allowed to do what they want, some of them will do things that are destructive. Freedom allows them to do that. We have to clean up after them when they do, and punish them for their acts, though.

    Maybe we should be celebrating how much freedom we have?

  • Feb 16th, 2018 @ 8:11pm

    Just an FYI

    The jails are run by the Sheriff's department, and our current Sheriff is Bill Gore, who was the FBI agent who gave the shoot-to-kill order at Ruby Ridge, then refused to testify to Congress over what happened.


  • Jan 24th, 2018 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Or are you perhaps moving to a neighborhood with neighbors that use less internet? I heard that's really easy too.

    Actually, we are moving soon to get better service.

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 5:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is the thread where he gave the game away. In some posts he knows what net neutrality is and in others he doesn't; in some posts he knows specifics about network operation and in others he talks about the Internet like it's magic; his arguments range from strawmen to "if you don't like your ISP, you can just move to another city." Not good trolling at all; much too sloppy and obvious.

    I've never advocated for net neutrality. I don't favor government control of the internet, and think the whole thing is overblown. You are flat-out lying.

    I've yet to hear a valid reason I can't pay my ISP extra to block malicious websites or give me more bandwidth if I need it.

    As for moving if you don't like your ISP: people have moved for all kinds of reasons. Look at the exodus from high-tax states to low-, or no-, tax states. Why is it beyond the pale for people to move to get better access to the internet?

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Because I'm already fucking paying for a smooth streaming experience. Intentionally taking it away from me and then offering to give it back in exchange for an additional fee is not the screamin' deal you seem to think it is.

    You're already paying for your local ISP to cache all websites locally so there is no slow down? Do you believe your ISP has unlimited storage and can keep local copies of whatever website you might happen to visit so the "smooth streaming experience" you are paying for is never interrupted?

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    >It's not the paying the extortion fee that is being outlawed, it is the extortion itself.

    A distinction without a difference.

    And why would blocking malicious websites be "extortion?" Your word choice is ludicrous on its face.

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    By definition, they have to have control to enforce the laws.

    If government has no control, they can't punish criminal behavior.

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Your ISP is like your phone company, allowing you to contact the businesses that you want to. Would you accept phone companies deciding who you can ring?

    For one thing, which websites have been blocked that you want the government to take over policing every move by ISPs? And if a phone company blocked calling a certain number, users would switch to a different phone company. The same goes with ISPs.

    I'd also like ISPs to block access to malicious websites. Why should my paying them extra to do so be illegal?

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    [T]he fact is the internet is alot like the roadway system. the idea behind NN is that ISPs can't just plop down a road closed -detour or narrow the street without a legit reason, or worse, enact toll booths at all points coming and going.

    Why would someone using a lot of bandwidth not be a "legit" reason? Or a website that degrades service to users? And there are toll booths all over the place. Ever been to a New England state?

    "I don't need it, so nobody else does either" arguments are invalid.

    Just because you want unfettered access to every single website doesn't mean you should have the government take control of the internet to police what ISPs are doing. I know of no one who's died from YouTube, or Netflix, buffering. Sure, it's inconvenient, but there are more than one ISPs available, and more than one city you can live in. Vote with your feet and your dollars and the best ISPs will come out on top. Demanding the government control what ISPs are doing will never get them to improve in the ways you think they will; they will only improve in ways to hide their actions.

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 8:46am

    Re: Re:

    Come by between 5 pm and 10 pm. I will show you how my neighbors are adversely affecting my service.

    And if I want to pay my ISP extra to prioritize my access, why should that be illegal?

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re:

    Net neutrality deals with the content that those lines carry. If your neighbor watches Netflix while you watch YouTube (or vice versa) the ISP is not allowed to tweak the delivery so Netflix comes out smooth in HD because the ISP is getting paid extra by Netflix.

    Net Neutrality is about being neutral to the content, be it video vs text vs sound, or source, be it Amazon vs YouTube vs Netflix vs Bob's video emporium.

    If an ISP says, "Hey! Do you like Netflix? We do too! So we partnered with Netflix to offer you a smooth streaming experience!"

    Why should that be illegal? If I don't want Netflix, why would I care if my ISP slows it down? And if my ISP slows it down, I can use a different ISP that doesn't.

    I might understand if I needed Netflix, or any other website, to stay alive, but I don't.

    It's like saying a grocery store must carry every single type of product, because we don't want them favoring any specific distributor.

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 7:36am

    (untitled comment)

    So if my next door neighbor uses 5 TB of data a month, and I use 100 MB a month, why should it be illegal for our ISP to charge him more than me, or even slow his down so my internet isn't at a crawl?

  • Jan 16th, 2018 @ 8:09am


    I can't believe I was first place insightful!

    I'll have to make sure my wife knows how insightful I am! It might allow me to win an argument or two! (maybe!)

    So do I get to wear a tiara???

More comments from John Snape >>