keiichi969 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (56) comment rss

  • On the post: Zero-Sum Economics

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 15 Jul, 2011 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No no no, because the money has to be paid regardless. So if there is only one company to be paid, they get 100% of the money!


    Isn't industry accounting great?

  • On the post: ISP's Five Strikes Plan: Railroading, MPAA/RIAA-Style

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2011 @ 01:51pm

    Re:

    Hmmm...

    Someone get me the RIAA's IP block.

  • On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 27 Jun, 2011 @ 01:23pm

    Re:

    I'll tackle this chunk by chunk.


    I don't think that enough effort has been put into making the aircraft itself more secure. For example, someone with a small explosive can probably open a hole on the side of the aircraft and send it crashing down, which is stupid if you take into consideration that some military-grade aircraft can take a might pounding from anti-aircraft guns and still make it home (mostly) in one piece. You Americans are good at making guns and armour right? Time to put some of that knowledge to good use.


    This is due to fundamental design differences. A fighter is 90% aircraft and 10% people. A 747 is 90% people and 10% aircraft. In addition most of our aircraft can not take a pounding. the A-10 being the exception, not the case. One solid missile strike and any aircraft in the US arsenal is toast.


    Aircraft should also have some sort of inconvenient mechanism for crossing sections (also, more sections). Sort of two doors where only one of the could be open at the time (to slow down the process of crossing between sections). The pilot should also have a master locking control that locks all inter-section doors.


    This is a bad idea. More compartmentalization would mean much much longer waits for passengers during boarding.

    The whole point of a hijacking today, is to take over control of the plane. Locking the cockpit doors solves this issue. without access to the cockpit, the terrorist can't hijack the plane.

    What are they going to do, threaten to kill a hostage every 10 minutes until the pilot lets them fly the plane into another building?



    But there is also work to do on the ground. There should be effective mechanisms to detect guns and explosives on passengers/luggage. And I mean sensors! Pat-downs are ineffective and inefficient: you can't pat everyone down, and it only takes one slip-up to cause a disaster. And let's be honest here: If I can tell that a planet that is a bajillion light-years away is inhabitable, why can't I scan a guy and tell that he is carrying a gun?


    We've had this technology for years, its called a metal detector. Despite being a plastic pistol, even a Glock has to have a metal barrel.

  • On the post: Why We Haven't Seen Any Lawsuits Filed Against The Government Over Domain Seizures: Justice Department Stalling

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 24 May, 2011 @ 02:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Ugh, I hate to do this but I'll use a car analogy. In this analogy, cars cost $9.99 per year on CarDaddy.com

    Imagine driving around in a city and needing to park. You see a sign in the middle of a block that says "No parking, here to corner." So you park before the sign.

    Your car gets towed. You're told the sign meant the other corner. You don't think this was right. So you want to get your car back.

    You go to the city and they say they get impounded car reports once a year. If you want it back sooner you need to talk to a tow company. There are 50 in the city.

    Each tow company tells you that you need to pay $500 to file a "go look for my car in your lot" report.

    What do you do?

  • On the post: TSA Frisks A Baby; Says The Stroller Set Off 'Explosives' Alarm

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 11 May, 2011 @ 08:41am

    Unfortunately for the parents and other passengers on-board the aircraft, an hour later the kid did bomb in his diaper.

  • On the post: How Adobe Drives Infringement Of Its Products Through Incompatibility

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 05 May, 2011 @ 08:46am

    Adobe's response to all of this is, effectively, "well, buy a copy of all versions." Easier said than done, of course, and that's where it helps drive unauthorized infringement.


    Not quite true. The answer isn't buy one copy of all versions, but to to force everyone to upgrade to the latest version.

  • On the post: Sony Told To Pay Finnish Man 100 Euros For Removing OtherOS

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2011 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG

    Yes but if the barn door is closed, they can pretend the horse is still in the barn.

  • On the post: Banks Can't Figure Out How To Spell Gadhafi, So They Can't Freeze His Assets

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2011 @ 02:28pm

    Re:

    That's a horrible idea. Then the Templars can trace us by our phylacteries!

  • On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2011 @ 09:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Settlement terms aren't completely known

    The cards he was holding, was that a loss for Sony would basically say that, yes, we as consumers, can do whatever we want with what we purchased. That it would be legal to jailbreak all our electronic devices, not just the iPhone.

    That thought scares the bejesus out of the Sony execs.

  • On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2011 @ 09:47pm

    Re: Re: Settlement terms aren't completely known

    Actually that's just the stipulations of the settlement, not the actual settlement itself.

    Everyone keeps looking at that and thinking its the entire settlement. Its not. Its merely the terms that have to be upheld for the settlement to proceed.

    The actual terms have not been released, and neither party is allowed to talk about it until after its been approved by everyone, and they agree to release the terms.

  • On the post: Geohot Supporters Angry He Settled With Sony

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2011 @ 07:26pm

    Re: Settlement terms aren't completely known

    Exactly.

    If Sony had such a slam dunk case they wouldn't have settled. I think once the settlement terms come out fully, we'll all be surprised.

    At this point, who knows, maybe Geohot kept his promise and got what we all wanted.

  • On the post: MPAA: Real Patriots Don't Share

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2011 @ 08:49am

    "The key foundation of American industry, the expectation that hard work and innovation is rewarded,


    So... you guys expect to be rewarded... why?

  • On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2011 @ 03:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You apparently missed the last half of that sentence.


    Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A). [See below]

    (A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17, or section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of this title.


    He is not making or trafficking. He is linking, which is neither producing infringing material, nor trafficking it. He is making no copies.

    Almost everything in those sections listed in A, invlove criminal commercial copyright violations, like copying and selling counterfeit dvds.

  • On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2011 @ 01:59pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Lets see here.

    17 U.S.C. 506(b)


    Forfeiture and Destruction. - When any person is convicted of
    any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of
    conviction     shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed,
    order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all
    infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or
    equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or
    phonorecords.



    Nope, don't see domain names there. It specifically mentions devices used in CREATING infringing works.

    This is aimed at commercial infringement, like making bootleg DVDs.

    Lets take a look at the other one.


    (1) Property subject to forfeiture.?
    The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government:
    (A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17, or section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of this title.
    (B) Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A).
    (C) Any property constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A).


    A: Doesn't apply, there was no production or trafficking.
    B: Referrs to A, which doesn't apply
    C: Unless they can prove that the domain was purchased with the proceeds of infringement,(which is hard because the domain was likely purchased first), this would also not apply.

    Unless you mean this one:


    1) Property subject to forfeiture.?
    The court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense under section 506 of title 17, or section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of this title, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed, that the person forfeit to the United States Government any property subject to forfeiture under subsection (a) for that offense.



    Oops, there's that pesky word conviction...

    Nice try though.

  • On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2011 @ 12:34pm

    Re:

    [The target is the infringement. The effect on noninfringing speech is irrelevant. See Arcara v. Cloud Books.]


    You mean this Acara vs Cloud Books?




    Whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of a statute authorizing closure of a premises found to be used as a place for prostitution and lewdness because the premises are also used as an adult bookstore.


    Oh and its findings?

    First Amendment claim denied; holding that First Amendment coverage did not apply to state statute intended to prohibit illegal uses of premises


    Allow me to highlight the difference here.

    In Acara, New York state statues allowed the state to force the closure of any building found to be a public health nuisance.

    What statute allows for the seizure of domain names, in the case of copyright infringement?

    Don't use the whole "Evidence in the comission of a crime" excuse. If that was true, they'd have to seize the server, as the domain name contains NO content whatsoever.


    I will also point out that in Acara, the complaint was filed, an investigation was performed, and the seizure was a result of that action.

    The Supreme Court decision did NOT overturn any convictions of prostitution against the owners, it was merely to decide if closure of the premises was allowed under the law.

  • On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2011 @ 01:28pm

    Re: Re: Does anyone have a full list of the 84,000 sites taken down by ICE?

    Crap, forgot not everyone has a freedns login.... I'll try to find a actual list.

  • On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2011 @ 01:25pm

    Re: Does anyone have a full list of the 84,000 sites taken down by ICE?

    Ask and ye shall recieve:

    https://freedns.afraid.org/domain/registry/?sort=4&q=

  • On the post: RIAA Not Happy With Rep. Lofgren Calling Out ICE For Web Censorship

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2011 @ 01:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Ugh, there's the "F" word again


    All these laws have corrupted the natural sharing, trading, remixing, and progression of ideas and expression that happened well before anyone thought that they could own anything spawned from their mind.



    Oh could you imagine how bad the world would be if we had this form of copyright abuse before we invented/discovered, say... fire?

  • On the post: Hackers Claim They Can Unban Banned PS3s While Banning Unmodded PS3s

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2011 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You're ranting about piracy, so let me ask you this.

    How many of those sites advertising PS3 iso's and hacks went down after 3.21 was released?

    Answer: None.

    Why? Because the OtherOS had very little to do with piracy.



    FAR more than there is petitioning for the return of legitimate OtherOS (linux) functionality.



    So obviously all those cheaters DON'T need the OtherOS to run them, or they'd be complaining too.


    Honestly cheating has not gone down one bit since the OtherOS got pulled, and neither has piracy.

    And one other thing. Its not sony's problem if there is cheating in games. Thats the developers fault. So if someones hacking MW2, thats InfinityWard's problem. They have to solve it.




    Thank god Sony doesn't run the US government, their approach to solve real piracy would be to nuke Somalia.

  • On the post: Hackers Claim They Can Unban Banned PS3s While Banning Unmodded PS3s

    keiichi969 ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2011 @ 09:25pm

    Re: Re: GTFO

    Wow, flawed statistics much?

    That "article" is based on the percentage of PS3 visitors to his particular blog. A whopping 1210 visitors is NOT statistically significant.

    BTW, I'm a linux user as well, and enjoyed the YDL OS on my PS3. It made a nice media center with my server running Ubuntu.

    Now I have to use some software to stream music and video to my PS3.

Next >>