DJ 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (757) comment rss

  • On the post: Expedia Against 'Search Discrimination'… Unless It Gets To Do The Discriminating

    DJ ( profile ), 03 Jan, 2011 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re: middlemen exist because of a shoddy job

    "American Airlines is entirely within their rights ...."

    "Expedia should be able to set up its search engine however it wants...."

    Absolutely correct on both counts. Which means the real question is not whether or not they shoulda/coulda; rather, why did they?

    In the days before Expedia/Orbitz/Travelocity/etc, if you wanted to purchase airline tickets you had two choices: 1)direct from airline, or 2)travel agency.

    While there are still travel agencies around, these websites have made them largely (though not completely) obsolete, therefore there are distinct parallels between them. Which brings us back around to the question of "why?"
    Why make it more difficult for potential customoers to buy tickets?
    Why, in a capitalist economy, decrease your own ability to compete, and therefore gain capital?
    Why point a gun at your own perfectly functional foot and squeeze the trigger?

  • On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2010 @ 04:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Stazi?

    Ha. No the Progressives would want to be able to say that spelling it with a "z" means something different; something happy and protective, and not at all associated with the Soviet Union. And the sleeping sheep would just "baa" in acquiescence.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2010 @ 04:11pm

    Re: Re:

    *(there are illigal immigrants from other countries too)

    also

    *(there are legal immigrants too, they're call "ancestors")

  • On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2010 @ 04:01pm

    Re:

    "illegal Mexicans"

    Though you most likely used that term innocently, it made me cringe. I am a whole-hearted advocate of enforcing immigration laws as they stand, but for all illegal immigrants, not just those from Mexico (there are immigrants from other countries too)

  • On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2010 @ 03:56pm

    Re: Wait . . .

    www.peopleofwalmart.com ftw

  • On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2010 @ 03:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Communism does not work. It never has. It has been consistently shown to fail; especially when you take individual freedoms into account.

    If you are a despot who doesn't give a shit about your people, however, it works just fine for you; but only you.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2010 @ 03:26pm

    Re: Re:

    Yet another example of why Communism is NOT a good thing.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2010 @ 03:08pm

    Re:

    Actually yes, but to a Constitutional lawyer, not DHS:

    Amendment IV
    "The right of the people to be secure in ther persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    but that's off-topic
    /soapbox

  • On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2010 @ 03:03pm

    Re: Re:

    Yes, but only because of the amount of leeway he was given to investigate people. It wasn't his cause that was bad, it was his methods. Unfortunately the lesson of "ends DO NOT justify means" has been apparently lost on both the Executive and Legislative branches (regardless of party) of US gov't; here's hoping that at least one branch remains sane.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors

    DJ ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2010 @ 02:59pm

    Re: Stazi?

    I think that's a bit of a stretch; only problem is I have no idea what I mean by "a bit"....

  • On the post: UK Couple Pressure McDonalds To Remove Their Boat From TV Ad

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2010 @ 03:00pm

    Re:

    On the one hand, I agree with you that the photographer clearly took a photo of the boat intentionally, and then McD's intentionally used that photo to aid in marketing their product.

    However, if the Parsons want only those people who have explcit permission to photograph their boat, they should lock it in a boathouse and never ever take it out. Likening this photo to going "into someone's garden and just take a shot of their house" is inaccurate at best. The only definite statement I can make is that it was obiviously not shot on property owned or rented by the Parsons; if it were they would've known about the photo shoot in advance and, most likely, monetarily compensated. Therefore there was no "going into the garden". As for taking a shot of the house, I'm unfamiliar with UK laws on that, but most places in the US a photographer can photograph anyone's home at any time, provided, the shot is not being taken FROM privately owned land, and any visible address numbers and people are brushed out before publicizing.

  • On the post: Choruss Goes From Vaporware To Nowhere

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 06:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    There's that word again. Let's see, there was AOL(admittedly has always sucked), Netscape, Compuserve, etc.

    Again, NOT a monopoly.

  • On the post: Choruss Goes From Vaporware To Nowhere

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 06:03pm

    Re: Re: mandatory ISP tax to allow file sharing

    Because OBVIOUSLY more taxes is the solution to everything! Don't you know that it's the government's job to think for you?! I mean, what would this country come to if mere adults were allowed to make their own educated decisions???

  • On the post: Choruss Goes From Vaporware To Nowhere

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 05:54pm

    Re:

    "Microsoft's dangerous monopoly"

    Ok. You don't like Microsoft. Fine. Your choice. But don't use words like "monopoly" unless you know what they mean. If Microsoft had a monopoly, then software companies like Apple and Unix and Linux (the list goes on) wouldn't even exist; let alone actually be competitive.
    A monopoly exists only when there is NO OTHER alternative. As long as there is at least one, no matter how crappy it might actually be, there is no monopoly.

    That being said, I would simply change your wording to "Microsoft's dangerous [stranglehold]"

  • On the post: Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 05:40pm

    Re: (the fine print no one read)

    Verbal agreements aren't legally binding in the U.S.

    I know this has also been hotly contested in the past, but I still equate a mouse click with a verbal agreement.

  • On the post: Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 05:37pm

    Re: Don't blame blizzard.

    "the fault lies solely on the judges."

    No.

    Should they even bother ruling in such an apparently frivolously constructed case? No they shouldn't, but that doesn't place blame SOLELY on their shoulders.
    For example, when I was a kid and my brother hit me, I hit him back, and he went and cried to Mom, who subsequently punished me, was my mom SOLELY to blame? Or should my brother have been taught some manners as well?

  • On the post: Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 05:33pm

    Re: When lawyers meet tech...

    "Maybe the lawyers had a hard time with a sensible way of legally combating cheat software"

    yeah that's kind of the point of this. They couldn't LEGALLY combat cheating software, so they found a loophole to make it look like they did.

  • On the post: Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 05:29pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The actual CREATION of the bot, yes, but then I refer you to nasch's comment (above)

  • On the post: Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 05:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'd have to say that that's the best anti-bot argument ever.

  • On the post: Blizzard Sues Starcraft II Cheat Creators Under Dubious Copyright Theory

    DJ ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2010 @ 05:22pm

    Re: Ah Judges,

    No. If a judge is ever compromised on an issue he/she should be considered to ALWAYS be compromised. Thus: bought and paid for at all times.

    Those who stick to the strict and LITERAL meaning of the law: good on ya!

Next >>