HideLast chance! Campaign ends at midnight! Get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »
HideLast chance! Campaign ends at midnight! Get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »

ShadowNinja’s Techdirt Profile

shadowninja

About ShadowNinja




ShadowNinja’s Comments comment rss

  • May 21st, 2018 @ 11:53am

    Re: Re:

    Nah, they'll outlaw smiling first.

    Some DMV's have asked people to not smile in their photograph because it messes up the facial recognition software.

  • May 15th, 2018 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Read the News

    Because 'Net Neutrality' is really 'No Charging Different Prices For The Same Product To Manipulate The Free Market'. And those rules are things we already have for other utilities like Electric and Water.

    The water company is barred by law from charging a different rate for watering your lawn with 100 gallons of water versus consuming 100 gallons of water in the shower.

    The electric company is barred by law from not charging you for electricity that Maytag appliances use, while charging double the regular rate for all electricity that non-Maytag appliances use.

    Those kinds of charging rules that are banned for good reason would manipulate the market. In the water company's case it would be attempting to discourage people from caring for their lawns (which would hurt the landscaping industry). In the electric company example it would stop the electric company from handing the home appliance market to whoever they want via the offer of free electricity.

  • May 10th, 2018 @ 10:01am

    Re:

    I think this was the most outrageous example. If I pay for a goddamn full game ($60 an all) I want the goddamn full game.

    Yeah, and that's the craziest part of the Star Wars mess. It was estimated that you'd have to play the game for over 40 hours to unlock iconic characters like Darth Vader & Luke Skywalker.

    Like seriously, who the hell are you playing as if even the most iconic characters are locked up behind a paywall?

  • May 2nd, 2018 @ 7:06am

    Re: Comcast is faking its viewership to screw advertisers

    But Comcast doesn't own any TV stations, outside of NBC that they bought.

    And NBC doesn't get ad money per subscription, they get fees per subscriber. It's their actual viewer ratings that determine the ad money.

  • May 1st, 2018 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re:

    Obviously mine is the only algorithm allowed to recognize pictures of cats, duh!

  • Apr 30th, 2018 @ 8:01am

    Re:

    Copyright is basically the definition of a law that needs modernized.

    To have the same copyright length on literally everything that it broadly covers is just absurd.

    Take video games for example. Outside of a few really popular games they're all largely worthless within a decade of being released and no longer supported by the manufacturer. This is especially true for console games.

    Yet games under old gaming consoles like Sega Genesis, SNES, etc. will still be covered under copyright by the time anyone who was old enough to play them on the consoles is dead. Yet outside of a few of the most popular classics, it's impossible to purchase the games from the copyright holder.

  • Apr 26th, 2018 @ 8:12am

    Re: I hate this cunt

    She is saying she is for a free market when she is absolutely not. If she was for free market she would be busy removing the regulations that protect these incumbent ISP's from new competition, but thanks to the fuck "free market" crowd they got the tools needed to drive these government blessed monopolies.

    Ironically the problem with a free market system is that completely unregulated, someone will inevitably win and knock all of their competitor's out of the market. That's bad for everyone because it allows them to abuse their monopoly control and raise prices on everyone.

    That's why the government breaks up monopolies, for the good of the free market.

    Marsha Blackburn is essentially advocating for that harmful monopoly status for ISPs, and for no one to do anything to break them up to stop them from harming everyone else in the market.

  • Apr 25th, 2018 @ 7:45am

    (untitled comment)

    Dragging this out isn't going to make people any less pissed off at the ISP's abuses and monopoly practices.

    At this point the only point for Pai to drag it out anymore isn't for the ISP's, it's to avoid having the GOP get slaughtered so badly in the midterms.

    If Pai's repeal kicked in right now, there would be plenty of time for voters to feel the pain and take revenge on the congressional GOP who backed Pai's plan.

  • Apr 24th, 2018 @ 11:04am

    Re: Not on my street!

    Yeah, some places especially are about not wanting others in their area.

    There's one street near a large university in my state that has a 'no outlet' sign to prevent people from driving back there. Only one major problem... it's not no outlet, the sign is a complete lie by NIMBY's to keep college students and college commuters off their street.

  • Apr 24th, 2018 @ 6:00am

    Net Neutrality irony

    I'm old enough to remember when conservatives like Donald Trump attacked Net Neutrality as 'The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet'.

    Now some of those same people want 'the fairness doctrine' they hate for the Internet.

  • Apr 16th, 2018 @ 7:29am

    (untitled comment)

    Reminds me of the stories of people who say that voter fraud is a huge problem who then commit voter fraud just to prove "see it can be done!".

    (We have more states in the US then there are people convicted of voter fraud in the last decade. And several of those convictions were by people who committed it just to prove it can be done. Yet that doesn't stop people from obsessing over the nearly non-existent crime as if it's running rampant and ruining our elections)

  • Apr 11th, 2018 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re:

    Not to mention make watching cable TV more attractive by making gaming less attractive.

    I know I watch a lot less TV then I used to thanks to gaming.

    Even when I do 'watch' TV it's often when half my focus is on the computer, often gaming (it's useful in between matches where you have to wait for the server to find you a suitable opponent).

  • Apr 11th, 2018 @ 10:14am

    Re:

    But if people could just give their money away for free then criminals could claim you were just donating your money at gun point!

    Next thing you know we'd have people selling themselves into temporary slavery for 8 hours a day in exchange for 'wages'!

  • Apr 11th, 2018 @ 10:09am

    Re:

    That probably has a lot to do with it to.

    I once saw an episode of Dateline where a prosecutor made an outrageous plea bargain in a murder case, right before a jury verdict was going to come back. It was a panicked decision to avoid a 'loss' on their record.

    The plea bargain was so sweet that it included zero jail time for the alleged murder who they had a strong case against (so strong that the jury came back with a guilty verdict while they were signing the deal). It wasn't some elderly murderer who was too weak/sick to harm anyone either, it was a young 30's woman. Regardless of if they were guilty or not, the plea bargain was so horribly bad for the prosecutor that it made no sense if their job was delivering justice. Since they had already held the trial he couldn't even say he was saving tax payers money, except money on punishing the guilty.

  • Apr 5th, 2018 @ 7:44am

    Re:

    A lot of employment contracts have blatantly illegal clauses in them. In California for example, virtually any restriction on where you can find employment when you leave your employer is illegal, but companies still put clauses in banning employees from working for a competitor or other company involved in their industry.

    Fighting it in court is too expensive is the problem. And a giant asshole corporation like Sinclair has plenty of money to piss away dragging things out as long as possible, and making it as expensive as possible for the ex-employee to make an example of them.

    The problem is the courts/law need to crack down a lot harder on companies putting blatantly illegal clauses in their employment contracts. Otherwise it still pays for them to break the law.

  • Apr 3rd, 2018 @ 11:37am

    Re:

    He probably bought into the attacks on this program a few years ago from some conservative groups.

    Essentially, some people only discovered that this program existed while Obama was in office, hence they wrongly thought that Obama created it. There were some Youtube videos of poor people thanking Obama for help getting affordable cell phones.

    This caused some conservative groups who think everything Obama did must be bad to label this system 'Obama Phones', even though Obama didn't start the system. And because it was an 'Obama Phone' that Obama 'started' that met the program was bad and had to go.

    I bet that's probably the whole reason why Pai is going after this system, because he still thinks of it as 'Obama Phones'.

  • Mar 21st, 2018 @ 10:33am

    Re: Wrong Target

    Because he was just following orders.

  • Mar 20th, 2018 @ 10:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Consistency in drafting

    It essentially depends on what the judge(s) want to do.

    Law makers at times put provisions in a law that says that if part of the law is struck down in courts, the rest of the law is to still stand.

    Unless SESTA contains such a provision a judge is free to do either for having a blatantly unconstitutional clause.

  • Mar 14th, 2018 @ 8:47am

    Re: Re:

    But Trump holds rallies talking about the plight of black people!

    Rallies that are attended by mostly white people sure... where he talks as if all blacks live in crime infested urban areas... and all of them are on welfare... despite the fact that none of those things are true...

    OMG, Trump is totally a racist, I must be the first person to notice!

  • Mar 13th, 2018 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice double Standard! No, "negligent homicide", serious.

    Maybe I'm wrong here, but if anyone in the car that was hit is liable for the child not being properly buckled up, shouldn't it be the driver?

    I mean look at the death of that guy in the police van where the driver was driving around recklessly and injured the person (which helped kill them). He was being charged because he didn't buckle the person in properly, it wasn't the other officers who were charged for not properly buckling the guy in.

    It's different states those things occurred in yes, but there seems to be a strong logic to the driver having the legal liability, if anyone in the hit car does.

More comments from ShadowNinja >>