Shel10’s Techdirt Profile


About Shel10

Shel10’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 19th, 2016 @ 4:01pm

    (untitled comment)

    There are no Journalists, only people who want to become a TV star! They are - effectively - "re tweeters"!

  • Nov 19th, 2016 @ 11:30am

    (untitled comment)

    For all those calling me a nasty person.... Understand that I was calling out Obama saying that he could not offer a pardon to Snowden. Obviously, Obama is an esteemed professor of our Constitution, who has never read the document. And, based on his performance over the past 8 years has totally ignored the document.

    With regard to Snowden. If he was doing this because he is a patriot, he should come home and defend his actions. During the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsburg released classified material, and stayed to defend his actions. He stood trial for his crimes - which carried a sentence of 115 years in prison - the charges were ultimately dismissed.

    I'm no fan of Snowden.

  • Nov 19th, 2016 @ 9:16am

    (untitled comment)

    If he can't pardon Snowden, he can't pardon Hillary!

  • Sep 10th, 2016 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Re: You are wrong!

    Actually, I am describing the classic definition of a reporter's (Journalist) job. Going beyond the facts is defined as editorializing, commentary, or opinion. What we have on the "News" Networks (Fox, CNN, etc.) are individuals (Wolf Blitzter; Giraldo; Megan Kelly) who claim to be reporting, but are in fact skewing the facts to present a personal point of view. If you are old enough to have seen the news broadcasters of 50 or 60 years ago, you would know the difference.

    Christian Amanpour is a real Journalist who only injects personal opinion when asked. Don Lemon says he is a news reporter but is biased, and his presentation of facts are skewed to his personal beliefs.

  • Sep 10th, 2016 @ 1:49am

    You are wrong!

    A Journalist collects and presents facts, they are not supposed to inject personal thoughts. Writing that someone is crazy because they believe that the earth is flat is not the appropriate action of a Journalist. The Journalist may present facts on both sides of the issue. It's up to the reader of the article to determine which side is correct based on the information in the article.

  • Jul 27th, 2016 @ 11:32pm

    Trump Hacking E-mails

    I listened to his news conference. He never asked Russia to hack into Hillary's e-mails. What he requested was that if Russia had found the 30,000 missing e-mails to turn these over to the FBI. Hillary and her co-conspirator (the President) are trying to move the discussion away from the DNC violation of our federal election regulations.

  • Apr 14th, 2016 @ 8:03pm

    President Veto

    Finally!!!! After 7 years, I can actually agree that President Obama is taking a reasonable action on the "No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act". He should veto the bill. ISPs and the carriers have failed to make good on their promises. The US should be leading the world on providing inexpensive broadband telecommunication services.

  • Jun 17th, 2015 @ 2:21pm

    "And a little something extra....."

    Amazing how a few dollars contributed to a political campaign can shift thinking. Nothing will be done about Comcast and its lack of customer service.

  • Jun 16th, 2015 @ 5:04pm

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

    The phone manufacturers already comply with required FCC warnings. They provide labels on the phone packaging, and if you should bother to read the manuals, explanations about "potential" hazards!

    I think we should put a dome on top of Bizerkeley. Hey!!! Might even make a TV series!

  • Jun 11th, 2015 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    In the 1970s, the U.S. Congress mandated that all Federal Agencies must create a methodology for compliance with EPA regulations. In the late 1980s, the FCC devised a protocol for determining how to measure the effects of exposure to RF emissions. This was based on how much RF energy it would take to damage one square centimeter of human tissue, over a continuous period of time, of less than 60 seconds. Effectively, there is no way to set a standard for damage based on exposure for a few seconds every "X" seconds over "X" period at "X" power level.

    What I have personally observed is someone grabbing an antenna attached to a mobile transmitter at 450 MHz, with 40 watts. Doing this for less than 2 seconds, and receiving a burn.

    Cell phones generally transmit at less than 1/4 watt (normally), and even less in a standby mode. They don't do a continuous transmit. Mostly, they are receiving.

    The Bezerkeley requirement is bullshit based on scientific bullshit.

  • Jun 10th, 2015 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Those labels will warn about improper banana skin disposal.

  • Jun 10th, 2015 @ 10:38am

    Re: A much worse problem

    I think that you have a good point. Many individuals afflicted with "CSDF" are actually in Berkeley. They are students at UC Berkeley!

  • Jun 10th, 2015 @ 9:52am

    RF Exposure

    Does the ordinance indicate where the warning is to be placed? Literature provided with the phones does indicate that there is a potential problem with RF exposure.

    Is the City of Berkeley considering a ban on electrical service? There's more RF energy coming from the electrical wiring and outlets in your home than a dozen cell phones.

    Florescent lighting (the savior of our environment) fixtures also generate a lot of RF energy.

    To protect us all, the City of "Bezerkely" should require the wearing of garments made from lead!

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 9:52am

    AT&T "Gigapower"

    Why is no one asking if AT&T is really delivering Gigabit service? More than likely, the customer is not receiving Internet downloads of more than 50 megabits per second. That's what I receive via my cable connection. And, I don't have any problems watching a streaming video from Amazon, Netflix, or You Tube.

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Classroom Privacy Expectation

    In fact, I agree with you, the student should not have been punished.

    However, three dimensional thinking requires looking at an issue from all sides. Not a matter of if it's clear to me. I was just trying to explain why the school took action against the student.

    Basic problem is that many of our public school administrators are so focused on their rules, that they don't look beyond and make exception.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Classroom Privacy Expectation

    Surprised you can read!

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 5:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Classroom Privacy Expectation

    I agree with your statement. Just providing an explanation of why the student was disciplined.

    Fortunately, the teacher was also fired for breaking the rules. A teacher should never bully a student. It's not a good way to gain the respect of the rest of the students in the class. And, it's an adult telling the children that bullying is OK.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 5:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Response to: Ninja on Apr 1st, 2015 @ 4:12am

    No... I'm not a zero tolerance, or follow the rules at all costs. Just trying to explain why the school felt compelled to punish the child. What I do believe is that and 11 year old child should not be carrying a cell phone. If they are carrying a phone it should be voice only, not texting, pictures or games. And, it should be set to dial only two numbers - home, or 911.

    The rules were clear. Cell phone use in the classroom by anyone was prohibited.

    Also, Bullying was prohibited, and for that, the teacher was fired.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Classroom Privacy Expectation

    Yes... because the student should not have been using the cellphone. The student should have gone to the front office, or to her parents, and reported the incident.

    If a group of people stops an attacker from raping someone, and decides to hang the attacker, the group members can all be charged with a crime. The group after stopping the attack should hold the attacker for police.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 11:04am

    Classroom Privacy Expectation

    Granted,there is no right to expect privacy in a classroom setting in a public school. What is not being considered, is that the school set in place a regulation (which applies to teachers and staff, as well as the pupils)to prohibit use of cellphones for the express purpose of minimizing the number of distractions which keeps the school from fulfilling its primary mission - making certain that students get the full benefit of an education.

    Cellphone use was prohibited because it can be, and is, a significant distraction. The punishment for the student should stand. However, the actions of the student, did expose the poor behavior and teaching skills of the teacher,

More comments from Shel10 >>