taoareyou 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (339) comment rss

  • On the post: Warner Bros. So Thrilled With Netflix 28-Day Delays, It Wants To Have Longer Delays

    taoareyou ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2010 @ 08:55am

    Casting My vote

    Netflix, go with expanding the catalog. They can double the delays. Any movie I couldn't wait to see, I already saw it in the theater. I LOVE your collection of streaming movies and would gladly trade new release delays for even more streaming content.

    I don't buy DVDs, and delays for new releases won't change that. All it does is prevent WB from getting any revenue from Netflix for streaming those movies while the DVDs collect dust on store shelves.

  • On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?

    taoareyou ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2010 @ 08:22am

    YouTube's Choice

    YouTube pulled the vids because they violate their hate speech rules, among others. I find it ironic that people are complaining about the removal of videos calling for violence against innocent people while at the same time screaming for the removal of "bully" vids where they target a single individual and emotionally harass them.

    So in summary, calling for the murder of many innocents should be protected, but calling a kid fat needs to be removed.

    Conclusion: The public will think what they are told to think.

  • On the post: Ebook Publishers Never Learned: DRM & Ridiculous Prices

    taoareyou ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2010 @ 02:20am

    Price Differences

    I bought The Second Book of Tao by Stephen Mitchell from Amazon.com. I got it new, hardcover for $3.50, the ebook version was $9.99. I will never pay more for an ebook than a physical printed book. Ever.

  • On the post: China Tries To Scrub The Internet Of All Information About Nobel Peace Prize Winner

    taoareyou ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2010 @ 01:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Generally, the way proof works, is you have to prove that something IS not prove that something ISN'T. Giant purple dancing unicorn-bears are not accepted to exist until someone provides evidence they do not. The argument that God exists, you can't prove that he doesn't is just as flawed.

  • On the post: Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song

    taoareyou ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2010 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Possible, but intolerable

    Perhaps he means that, assuming all governments are by nature corrupt and deceptive:

    Any perfectly secure e-voting would also be secure from government tampering, thus prevent any fixing of results and thus be unacceptable by the government.

    Any e-voting system accepted by the government would not be secure from government tampering, and thus be intolerable to the voters.

  • On the post: Senate Passes Bill To Try To Quiet TV Commercials

    taoareyou ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2010 @ 09:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Unbelievable

    How many less important, easy issues should be addressed before actually facing the difficult tasks? Just this one? Just get the whole TV volume thing out of the way and then they can focus on the really important, but difficult stuff?

  • On the post: Senate Passes Bill To Try To Quiet TV Commercials

    taoareyou ( profile ), 02 Oct, 2010 @ 01:47am

    Re:

    Yeah, popup ads annoy me, too. It should be a relatively easy, bipartisan thing that can be handled quickly by the government. After they fix my TV volume experience, they should block pop ups. Then they can get back to the hard stuff.
    Unless there is anything else that annoys anyone. :)

  • On the post: Senate Passes Bill To Try To Quiet TV Commercials

    taoareyou ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2010 @ 09:20pm

    Re: Re: Unbelievable

    I disagree. I think fewer people are affected by TV commercial volume than by any number of problems that the government DOES need to be working on. So louder commercials annoy some of those who still actually watch TV live with commercials (as opposed to DVRing stuff to watch on their own schedules and skipping commercials altogether). Seriously, the federal government should step in and make laws about every single thing that "annoys" a percentage of the people?

    If it annoys you that a commercial is loud and that you have to actually move your arm and thumb for a few seconds to the point where you want Congress to make laws so you don't have to, I think the population can also come up with a few thousand other "quick and easy fixes" that Congress can do first as well. I'm sure they would love that in fact. It's much easier than actually addressing the real problems, isn't it?

    And they can say, look! We did something. Now you don't have to turn down commercials.

    Of course, when your unemployment runs out, it's gonna be hard to pay your cable and electric bills so you can enjoy being able to sit in front of your TV without having to move when a commercial comes on. That's pretty annoying, too.

    They'll figure that out just as soon as they fix all the other easy things.

  • On the post: Senate Passes Bill To Try To Quiet TV Commercials

    taoareyou ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2010 @ 08:50pm

    Unbelievable

    In the US we have rampant unemployment, immigration issues, people losing their homes, millions having to go without adequate health care, a failing educational system and a crumbling infrastructure with bridges collapsing and roads breaking up.

    I know those are problems, but I'm glad we realize how important it is to regulate TV volume. It's an outrage how I have to push the volume up and down buttons now and then.

    Of course, before that, are we sure we don't need to see if there are any steroid abuses in pro golf and pro bowling? I know they spent a year fixing baseball, but let's not think that work is done.

  • On the post: Was A French Court Correct In Blaming Google For Its Google Suggest Suggestions?

    taoareyou ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2010 @ 06:41am

    Standards

    It's virtually impossible for Google to adhere to the various legal standards of every single country in the world. What is not legal in France is legal in the U.S. If your country deems Google's search to be illegal, take actions to prevent your citizens from accessing it. You cannot enforce your rules on every other country.

  • On the post: More Stories Of People Arrested For Making Joke Threats On Social Networks

    taoareyou ( profile ), 28 Sep, 2010 @ 08:18am

    I wonder

    How many terrorist plots have been thwarted by police after reading the terrorist's plans on a Facebook post?

  • On the post: Law Student Sues Google Over Allegedly Defamatory Blog Posts

    taoareyou ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2010 @ 08:28am

    haha

    If this guy thinks the blog entry hurt business opportunities, this document of his is exponentially damaging as it will be forever available for the rest of his life. Seriously, not only is he basically illiterate, but it really backs up the whole "scam artist" comment on the blog. hehe

  • On the post: Another Day, Another Apology From Netflix; Calls Americans Self-Absorbed

    taoareyou ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2010 @ 08:08am

    I use Netflix because I am happy with the service and the amount of streaming content. Off the cuff remarks, especially ones that ring true despite being unflattering, have no effect on the quality of my service.

    Seriously, he should add "thin skinned" to his assessment of U.S. citizens.

  • On the post: Time Warner Cable Boycotting Epix Movie Channel Because It Did A Deal With Netflix

    taoareyou ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2010 @ 08:13pm

    Re: Re:

    Cap and Bill will never make if off the ground in the U.S. for one reason: Internet ads. If people are going to have caps on their usage that can cost them $$ they are going to take every measure available to block 100% of ad content that tries to get delivered to them. Sure there are people who use AdBlock now, but multiply that by millions and watch ad revenues plummet, and then watch sites that depend on ad revenue have to cut back or shut down.

    It can happen in other countries, but we all know the U.S. is the world's leading consumer and advertisers do not want us shutting them out in massive quantities.

  • On the post: Entertainment Industry Gets Politicians To Advertise File Sharing Sites

    taoareyou ( profile ), 20 May, 2010 @ 09:18am

    Re: Re: Obvious Incompetence

    You are exactly correct. If their goal was actually reducing uncompensated file sharing it would cut into their income. To increase their own income, they need a constant increase in violations. Tell people where to go, then shake them down for money after they go there.

  • On the post: Pakistani Court Orders All Of Facebook To Be Blocked Over Page It Doesn't Like

    taoareyou ( profile ), 20 May, 2010 @ 07:25am

    The Difference

    On Facebook there are pages such as the Anti-Christian Sentiment, and There Is No God. You have no calls from the Pope to block Facebook. No threats to kill anyone. In fact, they get relatively no attention.

    The difference is tolerance. One of the Islamic pages I found was "There is No God But Allah". Some followers of Islam want to enforce respect for their religion onto the rest of the world while at the same time offering no such respect to any other religion. Demand tolerance, but do not give it.

    The most vocal Muslim responses to pointing this out are almost always near unreadable rants composes of juvenile insults and threats. This is what the rest of the world sees: intolerance, hypocrisy, hatred and violence.

    No matter what an actual religion teaches, it will be judged by the actions of its followers.

    I think the ban of Facebook is just a show. The number of pro-Islamic/anti-everything else pages on Facebook is my evidence. By banning Facebook, they are cutting themselves off from a global recruitment tool. It's nothing more than using the international news agencies as your advertising department.

    They will continue to try and control Facebook. Who knows, Facebook might be as spineless as Viacom and give in. But the ban on Facebook will be short and temporary because every day they block it, is a day they can't use it to connect with new members and spread their messages of intolerance to the rest of the world.

  • On the post: People Start Noticing That The Web Competes With iPad Apps

    taoareyou ( profile ), 16 May, 2010 @ 01:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Android ?

    Maybe you just need to adjust your perception? Mike's just this guy, you know? He writes a blog. He writes his opinion about subjects that interest him. That's it. All this "superior to us all" stuff just might be in your head. We all have opinions. Mike set up a place to talk about his. You can do the same. It's nothing special, millions of people have done it. :)

  • On the post: People Start Noticing That The Web Competes With iPad Apps

    taoareyou ( profile ), 15 May, 2010 @ 02:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Android ?

    I agree with your suggestion about adding a Mobile link. However you invite aggressive responses by making your point with irrelevant jabs. If your original comment had been factual only without the flame bait, your point would be better received.

    But I think you know this already.

  • On the post: Police Say Facebook Is Liable In Man's Death, Because He Was At A Flashmob Organized On Facebook

    taoareyou ( profile ), 14 May, 2010 @ 03:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Missing the Point

    Imagine if I get drunk and wreck my car, killing myself. Who should my family sue? The store for selling alcohol to people? The government for allowing alcohol to be legal? The company that makes the beer? What about the car company? Or the dealer that sold me my car? Or the gas station that I fueled up at last? Maybe the city for maintaining the streets that allowed me to go buy the beer in the first place?

    Maybe sue them all. They are all to blame. Certainly not me. I died. I must be a victim.

  • On the post: Lawsuit Questions Whether Or Not Second Life Users Really 'Own' Their Virtual Land

    taoareyou ( profile ), 11 May, 2010 @ 11:06pm

    Unless Second Life agreed to forever host their virtual properties on their servers, all Second Life has to do is make it so people can download whatever "code" they own. They can then stand by the claim that the customers still own their virtual property and proceed to host new property under the new rules.

Next >>