vastrightwing 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (293) comment rss

  • On the post: Shallow Surveillance Efforts Like PRISM Will Only Catch The 'Stupidest, Lowest-Ranking Of Terrorists'

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2013 @ 09:24am

    Re: Re: Re: So wait...

    I understand your point about Bin Ladden "creating" millions of jobs. However, I feel compelled to point out this is the broken window fallacy.

  • On the post: Shallow Surveillance Efforts Like PRISM Will Only Catch The 'Stupidest, Lowest-Ranking Of Terrorists'

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2013 @ 09:20am

    Re: Re: Re: So wait...

    Bin ladden was captured when it was expedient. Of course they could get him whenever they wanted him. Look where he was "hiding". That's not a place a person hides to avoid capture. Bin Ladden knew very well he would be taken in when his time came. Obama wanted a trophy so Bin laden was brought in.

  • On the post: Shallow Surveillance Efforts Like PRISM Will Only Catch The 'Stupidest, Lowest-Ranking Of Terrorists'

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2013 @ 09:14am

    Spot on!

    You are spot on! This PRISM system was never intended to catch terrorists due to its limited scope and capability.

    Another point is the cost vs. the return on investment. Look at the cost of this intrusion. The amount of so called terrorists this PRISM program would catch is statistically zero.

    So why pour all this money into an ineffectual system to catch the tiniest percentage of terrorists? Because, as you already pointed out, PRISM was designed to spy on us the whole time. I submit PRISM's main goal is to harvest intelligence on domestic and world wide "enemies" at tax payer's expense.

    This dragnet is effective at uncovering business information and information on enemies of the state. The so called stupid people who aren't aware they are being spied on. Because why would our own government spy on us? I propose the government isn't doing it for domestic security, they're doing to for businesses that paid to get this system going: to get a leg up on the competition. The people in power also want to know how much trouble they're in before the rest of us reacts.

    I think it's that simple. And yes, the cost justifies that because it cost them nothing: taxpayers funded it. No private funds went into the building of this dragnet. In short, people of power got a free intelligence drag net they can use against us. Therefore the return on investment is infinity. The terrorism angle/justification is only for public consumption.

  • On the post: Homeland Security's ICE Group Cuts Off Dwolla Bitcoin Transfers

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 15 May, 2013 @ 09:44am

    Centrally controlled fiat currencies are a pyramid scheme

    That's a better headline. If you want a good example, no need to look at exotic new currencies, just look at what's in your wallet. That fiat currency is just a plain bank note, controlled by a cartel of 12 big banks. The more people that use their bank notes, the more its worth. The supply is controlled by 12 key people. They can manipulate the wealth of everyone who uses their currency at their pleasure. In fact, by storing their bank notes in a controlled institution, they can even steal it from you with a government's duplicitous sanction (yes, I remind you of Cyprus).

    Bitcoin shares none of these attributes: it is not controlled by anyone. It is a computer algorithm. There are a known number of bitcoins in existence. How many bank notes are there in existence? Oh, there is no data on that? Too bad. Bitcoins can't be manipulated; however, the exchange rate can be once you try to convert it to a centrally controlled currency. Since you carry your bitcoins in an encrypted file on your mobile device or printed out paper instead of a centrally controlled bank, no one can steal your bitcoins unless you leave your files in clear text or lose your device without a backup.
    Back to the pyramid scheme, fiat currency is exactly that. Charles Ponzi would be proud of the banks for creating the ultimate scheme. They keep getting people to believe in the currency by coercing as many people to use their fiat currency as possible. People who want to trade in competing currencies are dealt with in the harshest possible way; often replaced by more compliant people who are willing to play along.

    Using Bitcoin is safe, fast and universal all over the world. Please explain where I'm ignorant here. I need to know. Anyone?

  • On the post: Royalty Collection Agency SABAM Sues Belgian ISPs In Pursuit Of Its Fantasy 'Piracy License'

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 07 May, 2013 @ 08:19am

    ISPs to demand Payola

    ISPs, in order to be more profitable have stated an old radio station practice of charging the music industry payola. This practice dates back to the 1950s when Dick Clark was involved in a big scandal. Some things just never change.

  • On the post: Congress Quickly And Quietly Rolls Back Insider Trading Rules For Itself

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2013 @ 12:32pm

    Here we go again

    Repeal the Glass?Steagall Act, bankrupt the nation with incestuous insiders running the country. Next on the agenda, repeal the insider trading laws so these same banker/congressmen can continue raiding our tax dollars. Oh and sprinkle special exemptions for certain large investment firms to trade commodities unlike us. Oh and allow high frequency trading (AKA front running), but throw anyone else in jail who tries to do the same thing. Yes, no surprise here.

  • On the post: Washington State Apparently Taxes Clubs For People Saying On Yelp That They Danced

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 15 Apr, 2013 @ 08:27am

    Opportunity to strike back

    Ah, my warped mind has come up a great idea: now in Washington state we can get back at all the evil corporations by posting youtube videos of a mob dancing at say... Walmart, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, just to name a few big corporations. Since they've all managed to get tax breaks, we can negate the tax breaks simply by dancing. Anyone care to join me?

  • On the post: Ubisoft uPlay Launcher Exploit Strips DRM From All Publisher's Games

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2013 @ 08:42am

    Re: uPlay launcher

    I see what you did here. You're basically saying Ubisoft purposely built this "DRM" in order to appease the industry. But the real purpose was to crack open the DRM so that everyone could infringe.

    Then by infringing, Ubisoft can now sue everyone under the DMCA law and make even more money than by selling the game with no DRM.

    Did I get that right? Brilliant!

  • On the post: Hilarious And Ridiculous: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2013 @ 09:29am

    Re: Re: profit

    No one "deserves" a profit at all! Son, you need to earn it every day.

  • On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2013 @ 09:55am

    Re: I'll answer your question

    I don't think copyright should exist. Let me repeat. I don't think copyright should exist. I rely on my own IP for my work, yet I still think copyright is bad. I can't think of any scenario where it benefits society. Sure, it may benefit the people who use copyright as a business model, but it in no way benefits society. If you don't think society should be open, then I'm wrong and copyrights should be extended.
    Copyright has only served to protect the first players. All others to follow are harmed and ultimately society is harmed if for no other reason than costs go up. A government granted monopoly, no matter how it is achieved causes scarcity and higher prices. Again, I reiterate. A government granted monopoly, no matter how it is achieved causes scarcity and higher prices.
    I survive because after I've created something, I move on and create new work. I don't worry about being ripped off at all. Each time I create something new, I get paid and I move on. Unlike copyright maximalists, I don't try to protect my IP, in fact, my IP was learned by others. Instead, I give back by making it possible for others to build on my work. My execution is not copyrightable anyway.
    Maximizing copyright is bullying, plain and simple. Corporations can plan their business without copyright. In fact, it's easier. No lawyers to pay. No time consuming courts to worry about. If you fail, get up and start over. If you succeed, great! Innovate again. Stop whining about copyright and patents too! You sound like sore losers who are only one trick ponies.

  • On the post: Boston Police Are Catfishing Locals To Bust Punk Rock Shows

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2013 @ 06:48am

    Remember Adult swim

    Yes, Boston is home to the country's finest: they freak out over hoax devices, shut down the city when they see a brown paper bag on the street, arrest Boston occupiers, spend hours "patrolling" on the internet for crimes that aren't real crimes.

    So now police won't investiage most incidents until someone yells "gun" or a shot is fired. So basically they will only investigate a potential crime possibility as long as they can do it inside a climate controlled office with coffee? Did I get it right?

  • On the post: Publishers Show Yet Again How To Make Money By Reducing The Price To Zero

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2013 @ 09:25am

    One more than the actual number

    The answer is that before they will concede, there has to be at least one more example then the actual number of success stories. Make sense?

  • On the post: Expose A Blatant Security Hole In AT&T's Servers, Get 3.5 Years In Jail

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2013 @ 08:38am

    No good deed goes unpunished

    I've been in this situation. My solution was to forget about it. I didn't want to get involved. As I say, no good deed goes unpunished.

  • On the post: Deep Dive Analysis: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2013 @ 01:44pm

    Prenda Law follows the same pattern most thieves do:

    They watch other thieve steal, they see how much money they can grab. They do it themselves and realize how easy it is. They keep doing it until finally they get caught.

  • On the post: PETA Goes After Assassin's Creed For Its Depiction Of Whaling; Ubisoft Responds With A Heaping Dose Of Sarcasm

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2013 @ 10:35am

    Here's a tag line for you Ubisoft

    "No animal testing was used in this game. No animals were harmed". Put it prominently on the promotional materials. You're welcome. Please use it with my permission.

  • On the post: News.com Picks Best Of Mobile World Congress, But Leaves You Wondering Which CBS Lawsuit Partner They Didn't Review

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2013 @ 09:54am

    How much of a kick back did they get?

    Forget the editorial review board. How much did it cost Canonical to get that award? That's what I want to know!

  • On the post: CBS's Censorship Of CNET May Undermine A Different CBS Lawsuit

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 15 Jan, 2013 @ 08:59am

    Re: media consolidation

    Ehh! It no longer matters. I get most of my news and information from sources other than the usual main stream suspects. Let media consolidate all it wants. That just means fewer outlets screaming the same talking points.

  • On the post: There's A Secret Reason Why The Government Has To Keep It Secret How Many Americans It's Spying On Without A Warrant

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2013 @ 10:05am

    Not safe from our own government

    Conspiracy theories are rampant because we don't trust our government. We must explain things using half-truths and hidden evidence. Sure, there's a good reason we don't know about this program. We will never know because not enough people care to call anyone on it. Nope, this will be allowed to flourish and next year there be more secret programs added. So let's enjoy what we have now, because tomorrow will only get worse.

    Furthermore, do I feel safe from my own government? No. Because we don't know who the government is responsible to. It's not me. I don't pay them enough to care about me. As long as citizens accept graft using taxpayer money (read Obama phone lady), us taxpayers don't have a chance! We are not being represented. We pay taxes because we have to or we go to jail. But we are clearly not being represented. I can't think of anyone who thinks this so called fiscal cliff deal is good. Do you think there will be any cuts? One? No. Because there is a history of flagrant abuse of money and this government only knows how to spend money, not save any.

  • On the post: Chinese Nobel Prize-Winner Says We Need Censorship Like We Need Airport Security

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 14 Dec, 2012 @ 08:56am

    I agree

    I agree with the statement. My argument is we don't need airport security because it's too expensive and the benefit is not worth the price. Censorship is also unnecessary.
    Yes, I'd love to go back in time to the 70s when you could walk up to the gate, buy a ticket and hop on the plane minutes before departure time. I argue that we're no safer today than we were then.

  • On the post: IBM Patent Lawyer Says The Patent System Works Fine Because… Hey Look Over There!

    vastrightwing ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2012 @ 10:08am

    A monopoly is a monopoly

    In my opinion a patent is a monopoly. A patent is a monopoly. We are supposed to believe that society grants this monopoly in return for the benefit of society later. We've stated numerous times that monopolies are bad, competition is good. OK, then why do we insist on granting exceptions to this rule and slaughter our belief with state sanctioned monopolies? Oh! Because the state makes money from granting patents and there's a whole industry around this process. The lawyers love patents because they're complicated and require their expertise to get them. They also love it when other companies "violate" patents and they can litigate and earn more money.

    I agree with Mike that patents are unnecessary for society and in fact do more harm than good. But I'll play along and cede to the idea that we could grant a limited 5 year protection on a patent and then promptly lift the protection after that limited period. Furthermore, a patent can only be enforced when the owner actually implements the idea. This way, we don't create a market for unrealized patents which enables strategic hoarding of unworthy patents to bully real innovators who are trying to realize a great idea.

    But patents were never about benefitting society, were they?

Next >>