Nobody Special 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (59) comment rss

  • On the post: Politicians Mine Commercial Databases In Get Out The Vote Effort

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2006 @ 08:44am

    ... neglected my srongest point:

    Time is a finite quantity in a campaign. Reliable data in your voter list is critical. Companies that sell this stuff advertise guaranteed accuracy rates, but more importantly guarantee that 80+% of all their data is accurate within one year.

    Think about it - how often do you register to vote? How many of you live at the same address you did when you registered? I'm guessing many of you are in college, and if you are like I was, move every 4-5 months... That's a porr analogy tho, since young people generally don't vote and are given little attention by politicians. The elderly, however....

    How do they do it? One company I have intimate knowledge of takes the voter data provided by a state (mostly on tape spools, BTW, because little upgrade to their 70's-era voter-roll technology has been sought), and then matches it to the Postal Service's NCOA System (Nat'l Change of Address System, also public info). Thats just only one of many steps they take to ensure the data they sell is 10x better than what the state can provide for free.

    If you have the resources to do all this on your own, and the confidence to stake your $10 million campaign on the output, have at it! ;)

  • On the post: Politicians Mine Commercial Databases In Get Out The Vote Effort

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2006 @ 08:33am

    good question

    "Why pay?" - the same reason a novice probably shouldn't be performing DIY surgery. Don't try this at home. ;)

    Make no mistake, there is a science to manipulating voter lists. The single greatest asset of any campaign is their voter list, and there is no close second.... A good one is GOLD. GoTV (Get Out The Vote) effort wins and loses elections.

    Except for a handful of districts in this country, ALL voter info is public information. Those exceptions being holdovers from anti-intimidation clauses of the Civil Rights era.

  • On the post: Politicians Mine Commercial Databases In Get Out The Vote Effort

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2006 @ 07:00am

    nothing new

    This is nothing new. You or I can purchase the same data starting at 2.5 cents per name. www.voterlistsonline.com, for example.

    The problem isn't that politicians participate in this practice. The problem is that the practice works - extremely well. That's our fault.

  • On the post: I'm Sorry, You Can't Use That Deduction: It's Patented

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2006 @ 03:55am

    I want to make a point that applies to a scary percentage of all posts on all boards nowadays...

    "It's W's fault!".... "No, it was Clinton's fault"... "Bullshit, remember Reagan?"... "one word: Carter!"... "Republicans!"... "Democrats!"

    What good does that crap do ANYBODY? Right or wrong? THAT'S the argument they want us to get bogged down in. They're screwed if we ever actually debated an ISSUE with the same emotion and energy we've been conditioned into arguing the previous paragraph.

    We face serious problems today. Things aren't black and white. This noise benefits NO ONE* - in fact, it is the definition 'counter-productive'.

    * actually, it does benefit some - those R's and D's whoring themselves for re-election. I can say this from FIRST HAND experience (spent 5 years in high-level politics). Not bragging - I'm apologizing. This is a pre-meditated strategy in play - I have actually been in the room with Member(s) of the US House "strategizing" with paid staff on how to keep the voting public split 50-50. THAT is your tax dollar at work in 2006. That's the only way to ensure nothing ever gets done while each Party's core base stays VERY pissed off and sending the donations. Since legislators draw their own districts (essentially), it is virtually impossible for an incumbant to lose re-election in such a district when the country's population as a whole is split 50-50 on the "issues of the day".

    Think about it. I'm 32 years old and vividly remember my 3rd-grade teacher trying to explain the Social Security system to my class. She gave up half-way thru by uttering "you guys will never see it anyway." That's at least 20 years that common-sense has dictated there are serious flaws in the system. What's been done? I'm not asking what's been proposed - thats the game they play to energize the base and mailing checks. What's even been TRIED (not floated, actually tried)? If they solve the problem, there's nothing to argue about in 2 years when it's time to get re-elected - I should put quotes around that since my own ears heard it come from a (household-name) elected Member. Name a hot-button issue besides war/terrorism, and then ask yourself how long you remember it being a hot-button issue. 10 years? 20? Likely 30+... I exclude terrorism/war because on 9-10 nobody saw that coming, and no one tried to spin it for their own *blatantly obvious* political gains for about 2 years. It took those 2 years to plan how to use it, but 2 years wasn't enough for those fools - 25-30% are about to be booted from office as a result of that plan...

    I could go on and on about this, but many of my best anecdotes are totally, 100% unbelievable - I mean laughed-off-this-site unbelievable. Names you would recognize - lots of them. I get so worked up recalling this stuff that I start babbling...

    To re-iterate my original point: the more polarized we are as a people, the more we guarantee the status-quo. The normal public (you and I), regardless of our party affiliations should be able to agree that the status-quo IS the problem. Politics is the art of compromise. Not sure when exactly we lost that notion, but we'd better find it again soon.

  • On the post: Invention Is Nothing If There's No Market For It

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2006 @ 05:58pm

    ... beat you by 1 minute! What do I win?

  • On the post: Invention Is Nothing If There's No Market For It

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2006 @ 05:49pm

    So what do you mean by saying that the patent system rewards invention more than innovation?

    When the current system prevents innovating someone else's patent maybe? Or at the very least makes it prohibitively expensive/frustrating/not-worth-it/etc...

  • On the post: Is It Still A Hack If The Content Was Available In The Open?

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2006 @ 08:59pm

    Ferd

    Read: http://news.com.com/Rival+behind+Schwarzenegger+Web+flap/2100-1029_3-6115082.html?tag=nefd.top

    The files in question were on the public web server, specifically: http://speeches.gov.ca.gov/dir/

  • On the post: Is It Still A Hack If The Content Was Available In The Open?

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2006 @ 08:57pm

    corrosione: see #13

    You do know what the internet is, right? If you buy a server I can't legally touch it. If you put it on the internet and take no measures to protect any of the data viewable on the internet, that's fair game! If you take actions to protect it, OK, I can't legally touch it.

    Claiming that I'm trespassing by typing URL that opens a list of all your files THAT YOU MADE PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE in the first place (by placing your unprotected machine on the public network that IS the internet) is ludicrous.

    I'm not stealing anything, I'm copying it. As a public official, he can't copyright his speeches or trademark anything, so **AA's arguments don't even work here....

    (publicly accessible, funded originally by all of our tax dollars I might add)

  • On the post: Is It Still A Hack If The Content Was Available In The Open?

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2006 @ 08:47pm

    Another thing just struck me... These are public, GOVERNMENT computers tasked as a web-server provided info to the public.

    The TAX-PAYING public. TAXES pay for the machine to host public information.

    What was stolen? Does the "thief" pay taxes? So he was stealing from whom?

    My argument doesn't apply to sensitive data of course, but are the public comments of an elected official sensitive? Who's working for who again???

  • On the post: Is It Still A Hack If The Content Was Available In The Open?

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2006 @ 08:39pm

    IMO, post #13 nails it... Nothing more "technology-related" needs to be said. Explaining it in a 4-second soundbite, well that's another story.

  • On the post: Is It Still A Hack If The Content Was Available In The Open?

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2006 @ 08:35pm

    right

    Except it wasn't on an internal server, it was on his website!

    Read the recent developments: http://news.com.com/Rival+behind+Schwarzenegger+Web+flap/2100-1029_3-6115082.html?tag=nefd.top

    Yep, the file was found but cutting dirs off the URL...

    i.e. this page is http://techdirt.com/articles/20060912/134156.shtml

    if configured properly, I shouldn't get anything illicit by typing: http://techdirt.com/articles/20060912/

    Arnold's wasn't configured properly, and gave a nice file listing when going directly to /speeches/

    Hacking? Do we really want to lower the bar that far?

    From the link:
    "The controversy may center on the design of the Web server called speeches.gov.ca.gov. The California government used it to post MP3 files of Schwarzenegger's speeches in a directory structure that looked like "http://speeches.gov.ca.gov/dir/06-21.htm.htm". (That Web page is now offline, but saved in Google's cache.)

    A source close to Angelides told CNET News.com on Tuesday that it was possible to "chop" off the Web links and visit the higher-level "http://speeches.gov.ca.gov/dir/" directory, which had the controversial audio recording publicly viewable. No password was needed, the source said. "

  • On the post: Is It Still A Hack If The Content Was Available In The Open?

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2006 @ 08:05pm

    I think you guys are missing the point. This isn't stealing, it's more about privacy. What was stolen exactly?

    If you leave your bike in your yard and I take, it is stealing. If I just make an exact copy and leave your bike alone, what is that? Nothing has been lost, exactly privacy perhaps. This is the same BS that causes all sorts of grief in software licensing, since technically a copy of an app has to go into memory to run, thereby "duplicating it".

    But don't you forfeit your right to privacy by allowing something to be seen by the world?

    Keep your eyes on this. Far-reaching implications are in the works, especially since this issue has now been poisoned in the political realm.

  • On the post: EU Warns Microsoft Against Making Vista Too Secure

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2006 @ 10:40am

    This is also another example of legislating business models, except this time it's in the EU.

    A company releases a flawed product, and you create a business patching the holes. Now the company comes up with a new version, not quite so flawed, which now threatens you. Tough...

  • On the post: EU Warns Microsoft Against Making Vista Too Secure

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2006 @ 10:32am

    I worked for Congress during MS' US troubles, and the stories I could tell would need their own site...

    This mess is going to far. Imagine a company wants to offer a competing Explorer.exe... What then? MS can no longer budle it?

  • On the post: Louisiana Decides It Can Clean Up Offshore Online Gambling All By Itself

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2006 @ 11:33am

    I live in New Orleans, and am really surprised this is not on any news here. For the record, there's only one 'brick-and-mortar" state-sponsored casino (non-tribal), but we do have several riverboats. Semantics.

    Murder isn't legal anywhere. Whereas the hypocrisy of gov't anti-gambling stance is stunning.

    My problem with LA's gambling industry is that we target our own people. The casinos on the coast in MS have been such a success and cash-cow for that state b/c it's from LA and AL's tourists... The state only hurts itself when the taxes are generated from in-state gamblers. Negatives far outwiegh the positives in that scenario.

    Now reality sets in. I'm now a classed as an habitual felon b/c I love to bet a little on NFL football. I'm not going to stop and I'm not alone. The cause/effect is debatable, but the parallels to last centuries Prohibition is real.

  • On the post: Microsoft Wants A Patent For Conjugating Verbs

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2006 @ 07:56pm

    Why should they deserve monopoly protection rights? -they don't deserve it. They earned it (risk vs. reward). In a more philosophical sense, those example provide more incentive to the marketplace. Hell, if Ron Popeil can build an empire from an 8-inch fishing rod, then maybe this gadget idea I've had in my head for 2 years may not be so insignificant after all.

    Compare technologicial innovation between, say, N. Korea and S. Korea.... I actually have zero clue about S. Korea's IP laws, just that they're better than N. Korea's...

    Why isn't selling the product incentive enough? -what are you selling again? That product that was never invented because there was no incentive to in the first place. Lets assume Super-philanthropist invents gadget X with no interest in patenting it, but only to profit from unit-sales. Except, with no patent protections, Gadget X is copied by 3 or 4 others with the same goal of unit-sales. I.E. you are now responsible for creating your own competition, drastically lowering the potential profit for the inventor, who also happens to be the only party with an actual investment spent prior to the first prototype. What market failure is there? none, since no products except those made by gov't would be available for sale in this market. Everyone else with an idea saw that last guy screw himself, and headed for a friendlier climate to produce their innovation....

  • On the post: Microsoft Wants A Patent For Conjugating Verbs

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2006 @ 06:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Which is right

    First, and I suppose I'm about to argue with Jefferson himself, but how exactly could a patent be unconstitutional when it is the Constitution that provides for patents in the first place:

    The Constitutional basis for federal patent and copyright systems is to be found in the Constitution of the United States Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 which states:

    "Congress shall have power ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. "

    I don't disagree with the spirit of your story submission, or most of the points in your latest reply. What got me typing in the first place was your characterization of the "original purpose of the patent system, to only grant patents in the rarest of circumstances". Maybe in China or Cuba, but not in any society based on a free-martket economy whose main motivator is profit.

    It's important to distinguish between "unique and/or innovative" and "the rarest of circumstances". Take for example, the little plastic doohicky on the ends of shoelaces: unique - yep, innovative - yep (revolutionized industry in more than one sense). In your "rarest of circumstances" scenario, does that doohicky even stand a chance? I can't see how, since it would clearly be competing with some much heavier weight for that rare patent.

    Besides, what would we do without Ron Popeil?

  • On the post: Microsoft Wants A Patent For Conjugating Verbs

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2006 @ 06:02pm

    Re: Which is right

    Love the site, but we'll go round and round on this one...

    "any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter." Jeffersons own language in the 1783 Act...

    How does that possibly compute to "rarest of circumstances"??? The word ANY is used 3 flippin' times in that one sentence...

    However, if you need to conjugate any verbs in order to debate this, I guess you're off the hook. Can't risk that C&D letter from MSFT...

    P.S. Only the first paragraph of my first post is original. Everything below the link is taken from the link, which is one of the more definitive web sources on Patent History.

  • On the post: Microsoft Wants A Patent For Conjugating Verbs

    Nobody Special ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2006 @ 04:50pm

    patents-a-plenty

    It's because there are no sources to cite. Despite Jefferson's pro/con view of patents, he administered the first patent laws in the US and then drafted their more liberal replacement. The Colonies as a whole were VERY pro-patent legislation that protected IP and compensated the patent-holder...

    see also: http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html

    (emphasis is mine) ...The first United States Patent Act, that of 1790 was a short act of seven sections only entitled "An act to promote the Progress of Useful Arts". [12] Under its terms any two of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the Attorney General were empowered to grant patents for terms of up to fourteen years for inventions that were "sufficiently useful and important" provided that the grantee submitted a specification describing the invention (and where appropriate a model thereof) to the Secretary of State at the time of the grant.

    In 1793 this act was repealed and replaced by a slightly longer act, the drafting of which is largely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who was at the time Secretary of State and therefore intimately involved in the administration of the 1790 Act. The Act is notable for its definition of what constitutes patentable subject matter in the United States, which definition is almost unchanged up to now:

    "any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter."