TasMot’s Techdirt Profile

tasmot

About TasMot




TasMot’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 5th, 2016 @ 10:28am

    If they put their minds to it, they can do really smart things

    I'm willing to work on that. Pay me what I deserve for working on the impossible and a budget for 100 of my closest friends to work on it and we will. I mean after all, if we self-identify as nerds and are going to get thrown, we at least deserve a big enough salary for being impugned with labels and sent off to work on an impossible problem.

  • Nov 16th, 2016 @ 7:52am

    Transparency

    Well then, if transparency is actually the game, then why not specify up front what is included in the advertised monthly fee?

    Let's see how that will look in cable-company-speak:

    "Everything is included except for what is currently listed below the line as additional fees and any other fees that we decide to hide below the line later"

    Yeah, I think that covers it.

  • Nov 1st, 2016 @ 7:04am

    (untitled comment)

    The FBI is leaking like a sieve in this case because this is how Comey is "controlling the narrative".
    That is what is becoming important in the law enforcement community. Seeking justice is not as important as controlling the narrative and getting a conviction.

  • Oct 16th, 2016 @ 3:32pm

    Re: Re: Regulations

    The interesting thing about automotive legislation is that so far goals are set instead of methods. That allows room for innovation to still meet the goals without being overbearing. For example, an MPG goal was set and some automakers changed the frame and bodywork to make them lighter but still safe, others improved the engine to get higher conversion rate from fuel to available energy.

    Hope that the innovation continues.

  • Oct 5th, 2016 @ 10:56am

    A CyberWar is like a Boat

    I've heard a saying that a boat is just a hole in the water that you keep throwing money in. This Cyberwar is just going to be another "war" like the war on drugs, where our tax dollars are going to disappear down a dark hole, never to be seen again (well except as some corporate executives private jet).

    Once it starts (and I'm guessing that it already has, Stuxnet anybody) it will never end. It will just be talking points, secret interpretations of secret laws and a very big bill for taxpayers. There will never ever be the part of the story that says "The End".

  • Sep 28th, 2016 @ 9:47am

    New Trolling M.O.

    Now instead of all that trouble with trials, just sue someone out of the country that won't show up for the trial (how can they actually be in jurisdiction) and get a default judgement against a bunch of un-involved third parties who have to submit to the judgement. That's going to fill up the courts very soon. Just wait until the thin-skinned president finds out that this work.s The US courts are going to be filled with all kinds of suits against people in Turkey to force down the content he doesn't like. Easy-peasy and no actual trial to worry about.

  • Sep 26th, 2016 @ 1:26pm

    DHS - Let's do SOMETHING

    From the excerpts is sounds like what he is going to require shortly is that in some way, IoT merchandize is going to need to be registered (and some small but perpetually increasing fee paid to DHS) before it can be offered for sale.

    This will cover the cost of all of the time it takes DHS personnel to make PR announcements. After all, businesses have no vote, so if a new business tax is passed people tend to be happy because they don't have to pay it (isn't that a joke), so the new law gets passed and we end up paying the tax with higher prices for every product sold anyway.

  • Sep 23rd, 2016 @ 12:39pm

    Re:

    Again, why are the police worried about an ambush from a false signal and not a true one?


    Because, while exercising their god complex they have veered so far from the truth they have forgotten what the truth is, and yet, have not formed a fully detailed backstory yet for their lies.

    Also, because, convictions are now better than prevention. If the crimes would be prevented because the purported criminals knew that the NYPD would be able to catch them because of they advanced technology they could employ, then arrest rates would decline, conviction rates would decline there would be less need for so many NYPD police running around.

    Heaven forbid, that would mean a smaller budget and less prestige. We can't have that, now can we?

  • Sep 23rd, 2016 @ 5:17am

    Move along, no crime prevention here folks.....

    This is one of those cases where they don't want prevention, they want convictions. It is curious how there is so much talk about preventing crime, but here, where if everyone "knew" (which they have for decades), how easy it is to listen in on every electronic communication, then it would prevent crimes from happening. But no, they want convictions, not prevention, so let's just keep hiding the "means and methods" because if criminals know this, they might not commit crimes. Wow, their illogic is making my head hurt.

  • Aug 26th, 2016 @ 12:13pm

    (untitled comment)

    Maybe (or at least I hope) the FCC is giving the big ISPs enough rope to hang themselves here.

    And, another big maybe, the FTC is going to EVENTUALLY step in because of the false advertising. How many times are we going to have to go down the road that "unlimited" means one thing and it is not what is being delivered? Can the ISP's just rewrite the definition of words the way that law enforcement does to get anything they want?

    Or, maybe this is the same as the "best effort" that LEO's make when they stop somebody on a made up law just to create probable cause.

  • Aug 24th, 2016 @ 11:05am

    (untitled comment)

    Baltimore - the East Texas of Reputation Management.....

  • Aug 17th, 2016 @ 6:19am

    Re: Re:

    I threw out a suggestion as part of a conversation. My point was that their chosen option of "boom, your dead" is not supposed to be an acceptable choice in the United States. It rings of the approach of "Judge Dredd" days approaching.

    What other suggestions do you have other than "boom, your dead" option they chose. Something less lethal is what I had in mind. A military response is not supposed to be the first choice. Negotiations or wait him out (no food, no sleep will eventually make him slow and stupid).

    Maybe even send in a big box of flash-bangs to blind and deafen him before sending in the "troops" would work.

    He was cornered and contained by a large force of police. Where was he going to go, what was he going to do.

    The bomb on a robot was a stupid and embarrassing idea and the police are no longer on that slippery slope, they are running as fast as they can down the hill into dangerous territory with no stop in sight.

    OK, so sleeping gas may not be it, but what have you got?

  • Aug 16th, 2016 @ 12:17pm

    (untitled comment)

    OK, I can understand a desire to terminate the situation as soon as possible. However; why couldn't they load up the robot with tear gas or sleeping gas instead of a bomb. This might inconvenience anyone nearby that got a dose of gas, but at least then nobody gets dead and there is a WHOLE LOT less explaining to do.

    I guess the new police as military troops need to kill not capture the enemy (I mean suspect).

  • Jul 28th, 2016 @ 6:38am

    (untitled comment)

    Could I get a fiber optic latte to go with the wireless fiber optic network (and a toilet for later when all that fiber kicks in)?

  • Jul 14th, 2016 @ 10:04am

    One if by Land and Two if by Sea

    Those colonial terrorists used encryption too. Let's get me out of the history books. Oops, they used lanterns, so they were actually going light instead of going dark......

  • Jul 12th, 2016 @ 4:28pm

    Oiselle should send the IOC and USOC a bill!

    I mean, after all, they are providing advertising for the Rio Olympic games aren't they?

    Or, even better, if the problem is that there is a tiny little Olympic symbol, just blur it into unrecognizability and leave the picture up that way. Take out the RIO and change it to she is going to Rio de Janeiro for an event, and leave it at that. OR, has IOC now trademarked the name of the city and nobody (including the residents) can use the name of the city except in officially sanctioned IOC activities?

  • Jul 12th, 2016 @ 4:20pm

    Re: Re:

    Been There, Doing That. I can't turn the channel away fast enough. So, I won't be watching RIO at all with or without the 2016.

  • Jun 3rd, 2016 @ 9:18am

    (untitled comment)

    Joining sampling with the "new copyright for remastering" idea, all the samplers are going to have to do is alter the sample a little bit through artistic choices. If the remastering qualifies the work as "new" and different and therefore a new 95 year copyright, then the same type of alterations in a sample will qualify them as new and not theft of IP (I know its actually infringement). If that remastering theory holds up, then the whole world of sampling is back on the table as OK.

  • May 23rd, 2016 @ 10:46am

    (untitled comment)

    It is also a shame that op-ed pieces like this get to keep conflating the poor starving artist with the actual copyright owners who get paid. The multi-billion dollar publishing industry that requires that artists turn over the copyright before they can get their content circulated and sold are huge industries making lots of money. The artists who actually create the content are forced to sign over the copyrights to their work and due to "creative" accounting are rarely paid unless they become a super-mega-star.

    And then, there are many lawsuits by the only-stars that are being cheated out of their royalties. Why is that?

  • May 18th, 2016 @ 2:10pm

    (untitled comment)

    One point not so far laid out is how IBM plans to make money from this since they don't build printers/copiers. The first thought that comes to my mind is that IBM will actually create a service that all printer makers will need to reference to see if a work has a registered copyright (with a pay for access arrangement). AND that copyright owners (I was careful not to say authors), can "register" their works (for a fee). So IBM will collect fees for letting owners register works that they want protected, and printer manufacturers can build into their printers for a fee and then printer users can pay a fee to use the service. IBM gets lots of fees and they don't even have to manufacture printers.

More comments from TasMot >>