HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

takitus’s Techdirt Profile

takitus

About takitus




takitus’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 14th, 2018 @ 11:19am

    Re: hypothetical

    The answer is quite possibly “no different at all”. Unless the site owners (let alone the users!) of a modern script-heavy site have taken the time to check the multitude of (probably obfuscated) JavaScript they run for vulnerabilities, questionable requests and even suspicious busy loops, pretty much anything could be running in a user's browser. Clearly most site admins aren’t doing much checking.

    As other commentators have noted, a browser’s sandbox cannot prevent a script from doing arbitrary number crunching. Mining blockers like NoCoin block known mining scripts, but this blacklisting approach can’t stop “trusted” (but compromised) scripts from mining while ostensibly sliding widgets around.

    The popular computing world accepts that a modern Web browser must run every piece of JavaScript thrown at it. Correspondingly, Web browsers have become enormously complex programs with code-line counts on the order of entire operating systems, which users must, nevertheless, trust to protect them from tons of arbitrary code. And the Web development world has decided that more, not less JavaScript is the solution to their customers’ problems. I think it’s fair to say that no one has a clear idea what’s going on when they use the modern Web.

  • Jan 29th, 2018 @ 6:13pm

    (untitled comment)

    The best way to do this, the memo argues, is for the government to build a network itself. It would then rent access to carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.

    The good news is that reading this probably gave Pai a minor heart attack.

  • Jan 25th, 2018 @ 1:09pm

    If you’re technologically incompetent, blame social media!

    If Facebook wants to recognize ‘trusted’ publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies.

    This demonstrates a laughably naive understanding of the Web. Since Facebook users (not Facebook) are the ones who post links to Murdoch content, the only way to implement his carriage fee idea would be some sort of “link tax” charged to each user who attempts to copy a URI from a Murdoch site. This would obviously have nothing to do with the big, bad social media giants Murdoch is bashing, but apparently jumping on bandwagons is fun.

    If Murdoch wants to use EME or something similar to charge Web users from sharing News Corp. content, he will be guaranteed to outlive his media empire. With this level of technological incompetence, it’s no suprise that MySpace is long dead.

  • Jan 19th, 2018 @ 10:14am

    Priorities

    Apparently “A basic understanding of IP” does not include an understanding of basic concepts like fair use or the public domain, let alone any of modern alternatives to copyright maximalism—Creative Commons, et al.

    Apparently the creators of this nonsense also don’t consider it a problem if children who believe their bullshit stop using Wikipedia or other open/free resources because “it is stealing”. Is there also a video about how creators who use free content licenses are villains destroying the market for copyright maximalists?

    No matter what your definition of education, this is a disservice to any person interested in learning. An educational organization that doesn’t protest this spreading of FUD in its classrooms is not really concerned with education.

  • Nov 27th, 2017 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

    Because they must dismantle everything obama did, sort of like a petulant child throwing a tantrum at the store because they can not have that candy or toy or ice cream (two scoops).

    One of the primary points of Mike's article is that there has been (and is) broad support for net neutrality among members of both major parties. To bring Barack Obama into it muddies the waters, as the “Obama-FCC power grab!” brigade well knows.

  • Nov 16th, 2017 @ 6:12am

    Re: It is a less intrusive model than advertising

    This raises an interesting question—if a web service is going to waste cycles, would you rather have those cycles go toward mining currency or your browsing habits? Resource usage being equal, the former might be preferable.

    That said, I’d hardly call it “nice” to be asked to “allocate a core” for currency mining to view a bit of HTML.

  • Oct 18th, 2017 @ 1:13pm

    Re:

    How is Disney’s ability to exploit its intellectual monopolies harmed by this company? As another commentator pointed out, Disney isn’t in the party-entertainment business, so this really amounts to free publicity for Disney products.

  • Oct 18th, 2017 @ 1:08pm

    Re: It's about a deterrent, not this individual company

    it's a perfectly sensible exercise of copyright for the copyright holder to nevertheless pursue such a case as a warning to any random schmuck that wants to trade off Disney's IP without paying for it.

    A more sensible exercise would be to send the sort of cease-and-desist boilerplate. Or they could issue a polite demand that the company obtain a license, with the contact info for the appropriate Disney official.

    Or they could just thank them for the free advertising.

  • Oct 17th, 2017 @ 9:30pm

    Fines vs. settlements

    I’d imagine most people think of a “fine” as something they’re required (by a government or other authority) to pay as a form of punishment, whereas a settlement suggests a negotiated, voluntary agreement between parties. By replacing the latter term with the former, these letters suggest that the recipient has already been tried and found guilty.

    I’m sure this choice of language was completely accidental…

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 2:16pm

    (untitled comment)

    (I mean this purely in the context of Mike’s article above—threats that attemps to silence critics make on Twitter are real attempts to censor—and certainly do not mean that criminalizing speech on social media or anywhere else is a good thing.)

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 2:11pm

    Twitter threats

    This situation shows how important it is that the validity of Trump’s Twitter statements be legally established. Threats like these might already have resulted in legal or congressional action had they been made in person, but seem to get brushed aside because “it’s just social media”.

    If a joke made on Twitter can be a crime for an “ordinary” citizen, perhaps it’s time that political elites be held to the same standard.

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re: Confirm our fantasy!

    To paraphrase a Techdirt mantra: “Growing cultures innovate. Declining cultures legislate.”

    Any country that would prefer to get rid of immigrants regardless of whether “they are violent or not, … if they help the country or not" is clearly on a declining path. Laws that require a country to deport citizens who (clearly!) want very much to be here should be changed.

  • Oct 12th, 2017 @ 5:14pm

    Re: Confirm our fantasy!

    Ech, sorry for typos. par. 1: “…the authors of some unfortunate _comments_ on this page.” Last line: “cause _of all_ our crime.”

  • Oct 12th, 2017 @ 4:05pm

    Confirm our fantasy!

    The ridiculous argument “illegal immigrants have broken the law, therefore they are criminals, therefore they are dangerous” seems to have supporters among the authors of some unfortunate on this page. If a government states that “any person caught north of n° North latitude will be considered a criminal”, that decision may carry legal weight. But, as Tim’s article indicates, it has little bearing on whether that person is more or less likely to hurt others.

    Hundreds of arrests were made, but many involved people with no prior criminal record. In the remaining arrests, most of the priors found were minor violations, with the worst being drunk driving.

    In other words, basically what you’d expect from arresting a sample of humans of arbitrary immigration status anywhere on the planet. But people who apparently live in a simple, self-flattering universe need to transform this into some sort of grave danger.

    "The US will be a glorious place as soon as we get rid of those violent illegal immigrants causing all of our crime!

    ...

    (Now let’s go fabricate data showing illegal immigrants are the cause all of our crime.)"

  • Oct 6th, 2017 @ 12:27am

    Re: Re: By that logic...

    Anonymous Anonymous,

    Apparently I should have used <irony> tags. :-) I was making what I thought was a pretty transparent reference to a certain very successful user-created encyclopedia, i.e., the kind of thing SirWired seems to think no-one in their right would ever make.

  • Oct 5th, 2017 @ 6:28pm

    By that logic...

    but who is going to step up? Because as soon as one government pays, any other government would be able to copy those standards for free. Nobody wants to feel like a chump.

    We should all cheer Elsevier’s efforts to create a paywalled Web-based encyclopedia. Who else is going to step up? What chumps would undertake a massive project when their work could just be copied without royalty?

  • Sep 21st, 2017 @ 9:58am

    Re: Yes, people would watch more movies if cheaper and better.

    This study shows exactly what anyone reasonable expects: piracy reduces sales.

    Except where it doesn’t:

    the estimated effect of illegal online transactions on sales is positive—implying that illegal consumption leads to increased legal consumption. This positive effect of illegal downloads and streams on the sales of games may be explained by the industry being successful in converting illegal users to paying users.

    Did you read those and only those the parts of this post that confirm your assumptions?

  • Sep 19th, 2017 @ 9:48pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    aka 1995

    In 1995 the Web was “read-only” for technological, not political reasons.

  • Sep 19th, 2017 @ 12:35pm

    Re:

    Among other things, SESTA would probably accelerate the death of the comment section. Smaller internet organization would likely find it safer to outsource discussion to a social media service with a legal budget, and Serious Business platforms like NYT would have a good excuse to kill off public commentary.

    The read-only Web beckons.

  • Sep 2nd, 2017 @ 10:26am

    Downgrading commentary

    That these sites are rushing to push their comment sections to social media makes another argument: they’d rather have fans than commentators.

    As Karl correctly notes, “join the conversation on Twitter” is basically an invitation to have your thoughts lost in a sheer mass of noise. While this may be a poor way to give a voice to anyone, it does allow Al Jazeera to brag about their growing number of followers and to cherry-pick some inane praise out of the heap.

    Placing a comment section on the same page with your content is a commitment to take your reader’s commentary seriously. Relegating it to social media, at this point, demonstrates nothing but contempt.

More comments from takitus >>