DJ 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (757) comment rss

  • On the post: Yet Another E-Voting Glitch; This One Adds 5,000 Phantom Votes

    DJ ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2009 @ 04:23pm

    Re: Re: Voting Machines Made Simple

    which, of course, takes us back to the PEBCAK phenomenon....

  • On the post: Yet Another E-Voting Glitch; This One Adds 5,000 Phantom Votes

    DJ ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2009 @ 04:19pm

    Re: Conspiracy Theorist?

    Back in the 60's a former Louisiana governer won the election in Mexico. He wasn't running in Mexico, but the ballot boxes had been sold to Mexico.

    I've looked, and can't find any news articles, nor can I remember the governer's name for the life of me; but rest assured this DID happen.

  • On the post: Yet Another E-Voting Glitch; This One Adds 5,000 Phantom Votes

    DJ ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2009 @ 04:15pm

    Re: Re: total vote count???

    My agreement with your argument would depend on two things: 1)the outcome of the election; 2)the severity of the screw-up.

    In other words a US president being elected by a faulty outcome is pretty damned severe; but a minor proposition is not so bad. Both are cause for public enmity, but an all out revolution over a minor prop? Not so much.

    So, I'll grant that whether or not a programming error is intentional is, in fact, NOT irrelevant in regards to public emotions. From a system designer's point of view, however, it IS irrelevant; who cares WHY it was done, just fix it!

  • On the post: Yet Another E-Voting Glitch; This One Adds 5,000 Phantom Votes

    DJ ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2009 @ 01:28pm

    total vote count???

    Ok I'm not a programmer, so I'm just going to look at the part that I do know about: TOTAL vote count.
    10488 / 5613 = 1.868 !!!!

    Which means that according to the machine:
    1 = 1.868

    Computer: n. One who computes.

    It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for 1 = 1.868 by accident. The ONLY POSSIBLE conclusion, therefore, is that someone programmed that into the software. Whether or not they did it intentionally is irrelevant; they did it.

  • On the post: Thomson Reuters Lawsuit Against Competing Software Product Dismissed

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2009 @ 04:52pm

    THERE was a time

    "Wouldn't it be nice if the company focused on competing by innovating on tools and features...?"

    But we can't have Capitalism in a Marxist/Socialist society; the two are mutually exclusive.

  • On the post: Right To Free Press Doesn't Mean The Press Gets Unfettered Access

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2009 @ 04:42pm

    Re: EVER

    So, did the officer say
    "Don't ever come here again to take these kinds of photos."

    Or

    "You don't need to take these kind of photos."

    Those are two very different statements. Another possiblity, and in my mind is more plausible, is that what he said was "Don't come here again to take these kinds of photos," and someone took "journalistic license" to add the word "ever" to the officer's statement. Thereby making the officer out to be the villain.

    Is there corruption in police departments around the country? Of course there is, but that doesn't mean that ALL COPS are corrupt. Which of course ties a parallel to the original argument of whether journalists should have access to ALL public information.

  • On the post: Right To Free Press Doesn't Mean The Press Gets Unfettered Access

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2009 @ 04:20pm

    Re:

    The cops CANNOT bar citizens from public property; at least not in general.

    However, what apparently every person on this site is failing to realize is that IT WAS A CRIME SCENE!!!!!!!!!

    Joe Schmoe with a camera can't just waltz into a crime scene and start snapping photos. Even if Joe is an accredited journalist!

  • On the post: Right To Free Press Doesn't Mean The Press Gets Unfettered Access

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2009 @ 03:35pm

    An interesting Juxtaposition

    The biggest problem with almost every media agency (though not all) in the country is that, whether intentionally or not, they operate under the pretense that they are untouchable due to 1st Ammendment rights.

    However, as Mike points out, while the Constitution gives US CITIZENS (only) the right to say and/or print whatever we want (slander and libel notwithstanding), it DOES NOT mean that they have to be ALLOWED to print EVERYTHING.

    So why is this a juxtaposition? Because freedom of speech also means freedom to NOT SPEAK; which is different from the 5th Ammendment in subtle, yet specific ways.

    In other words, just because you have the right to publish a photo of me, doesn't mean that I have to LET you take that photo.

  • On the post: ASCAP Thinks That Video Game Providers Should Pay Music Performance Royalties

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 02:35pm

    Super Mario Bros.

    do do do do-do dodo dodo-dodo-dodo do dododo.....

    Nobody hearing that opening thinks "Hey that's So'n'so's song". They think "Hey! Mario!"

    I've heard those notes outside of the game MANY times. I've even heard the song performed by a live band!

    At no time did I EVER wonder who the actual composer was; nor did I care. That song is, and always will be, from Nintendo's Super Mario Bros. So who's getting the fame? Nintendo. Does Nintendo acknowledge the actual composer in the ending credits of the game? It's been so long I don't know, but I think so. Either way, I guarantee Nintendo DID pay the person.
    So, again, the issue here is NOT about whether or not the artist/composer is getting monetary compensation for his/her work.
    The issue is also NOT whether or not the artist/composer is getting recognition, because in EVERY game there is a huge list of credits, just like in a movie, recognizing who did what.

    Ok, so the artists are getting paid for their work; and the artists are getting recognition for their work.... So the only question, now, is "What's the issue?"

  • On the post: Will Journalists Bail On Newspapers That Put Up A Paywall?

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 02:10pm

    Good!

    Maybe that way we'd actually have a news source full of good journalists.

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 01:52pm

    Re:

    Dude, your last sentence makes absolutely no grammatical sense whatsoever.

    So I have to ask the following:

    HUH????

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 01:50pm

    Re:

    I agree. However, the only problem is that if you make a superior quality product and then give it away, you just shot yourself in the foot.

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 01:47pm

    Re: Re: Whoa, wait.

    Karl Urban (Bones) made the movie; totally nailed the character.

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 01:45pm

    Re: Re: Time to throw a wrench into the works.

    The world of broadcast TV (even OTA broadcast) is WAAAY more convoluted than that, so Joe didn't NECESSARILY get it for free....but kinda.

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 01:39pm

    Re: Can't make money with free

    and that brings us back around to the "directly vs indirectly" argument.

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 01:33pm

    Re:

    More like CISAC wants NOTHING, music-wise, to be free.

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 12:08pm

    Re:

    What, exactly, would be your definition of "free music"? I, myself, have absolutely zero musical talent. However, I've been friends with SEVERAL musicians, and none of them would be willing to just give ALL of their music away for free. After all, they have to make a living too.

    That being said, however, they would all be willing to give away SOME of their music if doing so would help sales of their music.

    So anyone who decries free music of any kind because "it takes away the money that the artists make" doesn't have a clue how capitalism works.

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 11:55am

    Re:

    That is a discussion for a past topic. But yes.

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 11:53am

    Re: Whoa, wait.

    Incidentally, I loved the new movie.

  • On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free

    DJ ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2009 @ 11:51am

    Re: I agree

    case-in-point

Next >>