DJ 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (757)

• On the post: You Would Think Sony Knew Better Than To Install A Rootkit In The PS3 [Updated]

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:58pm

  Re: Back Door

  I'm not exactly what you would call "tech savvy", so I had to look it up; and I seem to know more about it than you do. Odd.
  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS338&defl=en&q=define:Rootkit&sa=X&ei=9jxLTbffFZDCsAOm-MDiCg&ved=0CBwQkAE

• On the post: You Would Think Sony Knew Better Than To Install A Rootkit In The PS3 [Updated]

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:56pm

  Re:

  Hi TAM!

• On the post: You Would Think Sony Knew Better Than To Install A Rootkit In The PS3 [Updated]

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:53pm

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

  It's cowardly I tell you.

• On the post: You Would Think Sony Knew Better Than To Install A Rootkit In The PS3 [Updated]

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:53pm

  Re:

  Unless you don't know how (me) or you just don't want to (inaction is easier than action)

• On the post: You Would Think Sony Knew Better Than To Install A Rootkit In The PS3 [Updated]

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:51pm

  Re: Re:

  The problem we, the users, run into is that few of us ever actually read the user agreement. As such, and according to many local laws, if it's in the user agreement that we "knowingly grant authorization...." -- or however it might be worded -- then we're kinda SOL in the legal world.
  
  So how do we fight back? Simple, stop buying PS3; you could even go so far as to boycott Sony altogether. I'm not calling for a Sony boycott (I own many of their products), but if PS3 is potentially compromised, don't use it. Simple.

• On the post: You Would Think Sony Knew Better Than To Install A Rootkit In The PS3 [Updated]

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:43pm

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

  "I see" said the blind man....

• On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:38pm

  Re: That's why I've been recommending

  " you never know when someone might take offense at what you are doing"
  
  I'm not arguing your post, mainly because I can't find any fault in your logic.
  What I AM arguing is the fact that the above quoted statement is ever even considered in this country; beyond common manners, anyway.
  According to the US Constitution First Amendment, I have the right to offend you; and you have the right to be offended by me; and I have the right to be offended by the fact that you are offended by me; etc. In other words, if I say something in public that offends you, either POLITELY say something TO ME about it, or bugger off!

• On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:23pm

  Re: Re:

  "in your 'the LAW IS THE LAW! rah-rah go Govt oppress the people no matter what' garbage-speak,"
  
  I'm going to take that tangent and call you on it. This is a nation of laws and not of men. If you don't agree with the law, you have the Constitutional right (First Amendment) to petition for change. Until then, regardless of whether or not a law is oppressive -- and some of them most certainly are oppressive -- IT IS THE LAW and breaking the law carries consequences, regardless of who you are.

• On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:18pm

  Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe

  Correction:
  It's not illegal, it's unconstitutional, which, since the US Constitution is the highest law in the land, is worse than illegal.

• On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:13pm

  Re: Re: Question @ Joe

  United States Constitution
  Amendment I.
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of greivances."
  
  Key phrase: Congress shall make no law
  This means that it's ILLEGAL to make a law that affects free speech AT ALL; even if that affectation is incidental, it's still illegal.

• On the post: Entrepreneurs Who Create Value vs. Entrepreneurs Who Lock Up Value

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 03:04pm

  Re: Great article, except one thing:

  Yes indeed, and although his early days mark him as a brilliant entrepreneur, the latter days mark him as a monopolistic tyrant. It's interesting to note, too, that the artwork displayed throughout 30 Rock is blatantly Socialistic in nature. Makes you think....

• On the post: Entrepreneurs Who Create Value vs. Entrepreneurs Who Lock Up Value

  

  DJ ( profile ), 03 Feb, 2011 @ 02:59pm

  Re: Real market entrepreneurs should never rest on their laurels. Progress is a continuum. What seems like it is risk-free today carries the greatest risk tomorrow.

  Sadly, there are too many people who read that comment and didn't recognize the sarcasm.

• On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her

  

  DJ ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2011 @ 12:15pm

  Re: Re: Free press

  The First Amendment DOES NOT prohibit someone from recording (for the idjits: "recording" can be done by handwriting, so don't bother with any time vs. tech arguments) a public, or semi-public, conversation; just that YOUR right to say whatever you want can't be infringed upon.
  Regardless of local laws, eavesdropping does not infringe upon anyone's rights ("privacy" and "public" are mutually exclusive)

• On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her

  

  DJ ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2011 @ 12:04pm

  Re: Quote from story

  Rodney King WAS a great starting point...
  for just such laws as the "eavesdropping act".
  Once that happened, the crooked cops -- not all are crooked -- realized that they'd get in all kinds of trouble if the general public were allowed to video/audio tape their every move.
  
  To clarify, I wholeheartedly support local police forces. It's the crooked individuals that we too often see; and we tend to forget that they make up a small percentage of the whole.

• On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her

  

  DJ ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2011 @ 11:58am

  Re: Re: Business As Usual

  While you are correct, it goes deeper than that; WAY deeper.

• On the post: Why Would The NFL Force Toyota To Pull An Ad About Protecting Players From Concussions?

  

  DJ ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2011 @ 11:55am

  Re: You missed the article

  Yeah, once again a corporation is buying into the premise that the general public is stupid, and therefore can't differentiate between "reduce" and "prevent/eliminate".

• On the post: Why Would The NFL Force Toyota To Pull An Ad About Protecting Players From Concussions?

  

  DJ ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2011 @ 11:50am

  Re:

  Umm...huh?
  Apparently you weren't paying attention to ACTUAL news so I'll sum it up for you:
  
  1)British Petrolem (BP) applied to the state of Louisiana to drill in shallow water.
  2)Louisiana approved BP's request
  3)OBAMA said "No you have to go drill in excessively deep water where no one else is drilling" (paraphrase)
  4)BP's rig exploded
  5)massive amounts of oil leaked (not spilled) into the GoM.
  
  Toyota didn't play a part in that; unless you count that they make devices powered by petroleum products

• On the post: Why Would The NFL Force Toyota To Pull An Ad About Protecting Players From Concussions?

  

  DJ ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2011 @ 11:45am

  Re: I still dont get it....

  They DON'T?!?!

• On the post: Why Would The NFL Force Toyota To Pull An Ad About Protecting Players From Concussions?

  

  DJ ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2011 @ 11:42am

  Tangent...

  It's also a reasonable point that the more protective gear people wear, the more risks they are willing to take. I don't have any data about footbal injuries in, say, the '40s, but I'm willing to bet they were at least different from what we see now; if not less severe.
  
  One thing I do know is that Rugby has sacred few injuries beyond the superficial, and they wear NO protective gear.
  
  Just sayin....

• On the post: Why Would The NFL Force Toyota To Pull An Ad About Protecting Players From Concussions?

  

  DJ ( profile ), 24 Jan, 2011 @ 11:35am

  Rhetoric

  "just edit out that helmet-to-helmet crash. Well, phew, now football feels safe again, right?"
  
  Kind of like Congress wanting to ban "violent words"....

Next >>