Ryan's Techdirt Profile


About Ryan

Ryan's Comments comment rss

  • Mar 17, 2010 @ 01:26pm


    There seems to be a trend in tech rulings, where the victor is the one whose analogy the judge better understands.

    If only we could have judges who actually understood tech and the internet.

    Even better would be politicians who understood it too.

  • Mar 10, 2010 @ 08:42am

    It's about users

    As a developer - it's not about the platform or the rules. It's about the audience. As long as the iPhone/iPad continue to have a large user base, it only makes good business sense for me to do whatever I need to do to make my product accessible to that user base.

  • Jan 19, 2010 @ 08:51am


    how the times have changed. I remember making a spud gun (it looked like a cannon and shot a potato about 100 yards) for my high school physics class. We used it to study velocity and motion equations in a way more fun way than simply doing calculations on the blackboard.

    I can't imagine what would happen if I were a student today and pulled into the parking lot with what looked like a cannon in my pickup truck.

  • Dec 16, 2009 @ 07:22am


    I used to run a text message site (that I sold recently) where users could text somebody from the web.

    It's still the most popular one out there, but I used to get these types of lawsuit threats all the time. I'd always advise the person that it wasn't me sending the message and to have a lawyer explain section 230 to them.

    Thankfully I never had to go to court.

    That's one hell of an effort over a text message. Delete it and move on. If you keep getting them, block the number and move on. Why would this have to go to court?

  • Dec 15, 2009 @ 07:53am


    How long until they go after those who sing in the shower?

  • Oct 30, 2009 @ 09:59am


    not that I've ever done it, but if you were to hypothetically get auto follow software, then auto tweet links to a webpage with CPM ads on it, you could theoretically make a few bucks per day with only about 5 minutes of work.

  • Oct 30, 2009 @ 07:12am

    I bet a few..

    I did a post about this a while ago (linked above) where I explained the frequency at which people auto-re-follow anybody who follows them. Combine that with the tinyurl style links that you don't know where they go until you click them - and it's a safe bet that a lot of people are clicking those links.

    I did a test. I did a bit.ly url to example.com, and posted a tweet saying "don't click this link if you see it, it's malware" then posted the linnk. Out of my 350 followers, 15 clicked it within 30 seconds of being posted.

    Based on all of the above, I bet quite a few people are actually visiting the malware sites - but certainly not as many as security companies claim.

  • Oct 16, 2009 @ 11:15am

    jursidiction nightmare

    How do they determine jurisdiction for this?

    What if I live in Missouri but created the website while in Kansas, using a VPN internet connection to my company in Washington and uploaded it to my hosting provider in California?

    Which state has jurisdiction over the "crime"?

  • Sep 08, 2009 @ 10:08am

    good thing no paywalls

    This is why it's good that this news agency didn't have any pay walls in place - for if they did they'd have a lot more verified information about all of those commenters, like real names and billing addresses to be subpoenaed

  • Aug 20, 2009 @ 12:50pm


    Quick, Fox, get on that TV show. It will be the #1 rated show in America.

  • Aug 14, 2009 @ 07:21am


    So, does that mean everybody who spams search engines for a living can start bitching about the AP stealing their methods and moving into their space, and start charging the AP to use their "made up content"? Justsayin...

  • Jul 31, 2009 @ 06:20am

    the problem is seo

    Part of the problem here for newspapers is SEO. Many of them do stupid things like block google, move articles or take them offline after a couple of days, or have websites that aren't optimized for search engines.

    The only reason that these spam sites actually get any traffic at all is because they're able to pick up the slack and rank in the search engines for phrases that the newspapers "should" rank for, but don't because of their own misguided efforts.

    I've run a few of those "parasite" sites in the past. (what better way to learn about something than to do it right?) They're easy to auto generate, and about 2-3 minutes worth of work per site can bring in an average of $5-$10/month with almost no effort on the owner's part.

    Obviously it's not much income, but when you scale that over a few thousand sites, it can be pretty decent.

  • Jul 30, 2009 @ 06:23am

    the problm

    part of the problem is the lack of tactile feedback on the new phones.

    Before, with my old old phone, there was just a numberpad and it had proper indentations on keys to tell my fingers where they were at. It was easy to quickly thumbout a message without having to look.

    Now, with full keyboards and touchscreen interfaces like the iPhone, you can't text without looking or using both thumbs.

  • Jul 29, 2009 @ 06:24am

    waste of time

    See, you can't even tell these journalists that they're wrong, because they won't read a blog, an aggregator, or most likely even a site like techdirt. Hell, they don't even read the comments on their own news articles.

    They live in their own little world.

  • Jul 17, 2009 @ 01:09pm


    somebody should point them toward fark, digg, shoutwire, reddit, or one of the thousands of other sites that is successful simply because people go there to comment on stuff.

    How do you get one of these jobs, being highly paid to be ignorant of an industry, and whycome people like us who know what they're talking about can't get them.

  • Jul 17, 2009 @ 07:29am


    If I were on trial for something or prosecuting somebody, I wouldn't want the jury telling the world what was going on, asking for others opinions about it, or simply being distracted and missing details of the case.

  • Jul 16, 2009 @ 11:22am

    google DOES follow robots.txt

    "Google also does not respect robots.txt 100% of the time either"

    I think you misunderstand crawling vs indexing. Robots.txt says don't crawl my site. It doesn't mean Google can't index it - it just means they won't cache it, or visit it, or anything.

    They will still show it in the search results, but only as a URL - with no snippet or text under it.

    You're thinking of the noindex tag if you don't want to be listed.

  • Jul 16, 2009 @ 10:01am

    i wish

    I wish that google would call the papers bluff and completely remove them from search results - offering only to re-include them if and when they put up a robots.txt file

    They'll never do it, users would complain about not being able to find their news, but man would it be hilarious.

  • Jul 16, 2009 @ 09:51am

    yeah but

    the problem with robots.txt is that nothing in the specification involves people paying the AP.

    The AP doesn't want people to stop using their content - they want to change the way the web works so that they can be paid whenever they think they should be.

    They know that blocking google would be devastating to their industry, so instead they bitch and whine hoping that somebody will pay them to shut up.

  • Jul 15, 2009 @ 06:22am

    no impact

    Right, the farmers are farming on the US servers.

    Most "gold sellers" though don't actually farm. They steal accounts through trojans and keyloggers and "we'll level your guy for you" type scams, and then sell off the gold on the accounts they've stolen.

More comments from Ryan >>