Eldakka’s Techdirt Profile


About EldakkaTechdirt Insider

Eldakka’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 21st, 2016 @ 9:13pm


    We are told the autonomous car is safer because it has the ability of a machine to constantly scan and not be distracted - accept when the machine cannot see that which the car hits. Does not matter how well it scans if it cannot see the danger. This the first fundamental rule of autonomous vehicles?
    This is true.

    However, what relevance it has to a discussion about a collision by a non-autonomous vehicle I have no idea.

    Tesla is not an autonomous vehicle. Tesla's Autopilot system is not an autonomous system. It is a suped-up cruise control.

  • Jul 20th, 2016 @ 8:38pm

    Re: Religions featuring Sacrifice

    Some kinds of Satanism involve sacrifice in effigy, often the pope of the RCC, though there are some that like virgin women.
    They may have been a successful cult/religion in pre-modern times with that requirement. But these days? Good luck in finding said virgin. Probably have more luck finding a unicorn ;)

  • Jul 19th, 2016 @ 7:26pm

    Re: Good, but not as helpful as you might think

    I was thinking this.

    Is there anything in the treaties ISDS provisions that establishes the role of precedents?

    Even if Philip Morris has lost this arbitration, could another tobacco company launch the same case against Uruguay under the same treaty and have that tribunal ignore this precedent and give a different ruling?

    Even if the treaty does specify precedents as binding, what effect does this have on ISDS provisions of OTHER treaties? For example, would this precedent be binding on TPP ISDS tribunals? If Uruguay signs up to TPP, could Philip Morris launch the same action again against Uruaguay under TPP and have that tribunal ignore the precedent set under this treaty and rule differently?

  • Jul 17th, 2016 @ 9:07pm


    He knows content based restrictions on speech won't pass Constitutional muster.
    Are you sure of that?

    There are laws that, based on the plain reading of the constitution, are unconstitutional, but have been implemented and survived constitutional challenges. Usually by the Supreme Court declaring some special state interest, or introducing new legal principles that don't previously exist to make an exception of something.

  • Jul 17th, 2016 @ 9:02pm

    Re: Freedom

    You can believe in anything you want.

    You are free to practice any element of a religion as long as that element doesn't break a law.

    You are freee to believe in a death cult, say a cult that as part of it requires sacrificing 1 human every week.

    You can follow that religion, as long as you don't perform the illegal act of murdering someone. You can WANT it to happen, and complain about the fact that if you do do it you'll be arrested for murder. But as long as you don't actually do that (or any other) illegal act, you are free to believe in, worship and perform the rituals of that religion.

  • Jul 14th, 2016 @ 8:00pm


    Playing Devil's advocate, what they are trying to say is that these services have become a social necessity and first amendment protections should apply. I kind of agree.
    I disagree.

    Faceboook is not a social necessity.

    Facebook is basically a big social club, a REALLY big social club, but just a club nonetheless. It'd be like saying that the YMCA is a social necessity, therefore they have to allow you to post anything (that isn't illegal) on their bulletin boards.

    The Internet is a social necessity. Many of the proocols that are used on it, SMTP, HTTP/S, TCP/IP, SIP, are necessities. For example, email (SMTP) is a necessity. Interfering with email, deleting email messages in transit passing through your mail relay would be actionable under this theory (it's a necessity so first amendment protections apply). However, providing a particular email SERVICE, e.g. gmail.com, outlook.com, other free email providers, is not a necessity.

    If Facebook disappeared, then we'd just go back to Bulletin Boards or maillists. I mean, Facebook is basically just a glorified BB service/portal that's been hacked by spammers to spam you with unwanted advertising.

  • Jul 5th, 2016 @ 5:28pm

    2 words.

    Eminent Domain.

    Utility poles are critical public infrastructure and as such perhaps should be owned by the state rather than the utility companies, as it is likely, as in many places, that the poles themselves are erected on public land or other land that is not actually owned by the utility pole carriers.

    Other alternatives: start charging rent to the utility pole companies, with a rent-waiver or reduction if they allow the access as per the "one touch make ready" requirements.

  • Jun 22nd, 2016 @ 5:31pm

    (untitled comment)

    Zero rating also is seeing support from companies that historically supported net neutrality (Google, Netflix) because these companies are benefiting from the additional traffic and ad eyeballs these programs send their direction.
    The other benefit these companies receive is blocking competition. Buy paying a, probably small, or at least by these companies standards relatively small, amount of money to the ISP, they can block their start-up and other small competitors from competing with them because the small competitors can't afford to be zero-rated. And best of all, it's not GOOGLE's or NETFLIX's fault that start-ups can't compete, can't afford to be zero-rated, oh no, they can point the finger at the ISPs. it's the ISPs fault for having zero-rating.

  • Jun 13th, 2016 @ 11:05pm


    It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased newspaper with other people. What's next?
    Well, I guess you can substitute anything else that currently has some sort of control on it's poseession and/or use:

    It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased firearms with other people.

    It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased explosives with other people.

    It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased drugs with other people.

    It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased smallpox virus with other people.

    It's ridiculous to ban people from sharing their legally purchased plutonium with other people.

    So banning sharing newspapers isn't the thin end of the wedge, the precedent for banning other things later. Governments have been banning (or restricting via requiring licenses/permits) the sharing of things for, well, forever.

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 9:17pm

    Windows Update?

    Why didn't they include an analysis (or link to) of Windows Update as well?

  • May 8th, 2016 @ 6:19pm

    Could I also suggest...

    That TD ask some other like-minded sites, EmptyWheel, Popehat, etc, to COPY this story to their sites so that if a supoena with a gag order and a requirement to remove this story arrives...

  • May 8th, 2016 @ 5:30pm


    Login information is circumstantial evidence. It is not proof of anything apart from whose login details were used, not who actually did the logging in.

  • Apr 26th, 2016 @ 9:09pm


    This is a dick-waving contest,
    If he has to resort to legal suppression of free speech to prove he has a big dick, rather than just showing off his dick, then logic would conclude that he must have the dick the size of a newt.

  • Apr 6th, 2016 @ 7:02pm

    Re: Not necessary to create a Group Key

    The problem with your approach tho is that if you had, say, a group of 50 people, this would mean you'd have to encrypt a single message 49 times, once for each member (apart from yourself).

    Encryption is quite an expensive process, running encryption across say a 1MB jpeg 49 times would be very expensive.

    Having a unique encryption key just for that group chat, with each group member having a copy, means a single encryption process for every member to receive an encrypted message.

  • Mar 21st, 2016 @ 4:58pm


    Crude, very crude.

  • Mar 20th, 2016 @ 5:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    One of the elements to this case by the FBI is that performing this work is not overly burdensome on Apple, because writing code is something apple already does, it has the staff and technical expertise in place to do the compelled work.

    However, if Apple has to hire new employees to do this work, wouldn't that demolish that argument? The mere fact that they would have to hire new staff would counter the "already in place staff and skills" aspect of the argument at the very least.

    And if Apple has to start firing highly-skilled engineers, with decades of experience, or engage in litigation of those same engineers to force them to honour their contracts and do that work, again, burdensome?

  • Mar 16th, 2016 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Let's look at the problem from another angle

    But it's the telco who's providing the communication service, the data connection carried over their wires.

    The VoIP app is just data travelling along the data service provided by the telcos.

  • Mar 16th, 2016 @ 4:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    tracks and filters traffic
    And what does it do with that tracking data? Upload it via unsecure http to the vendor's website for onsale to advertisers and availability (since it's now a business record) for government requests for users surfing habits?

  • Mar 8th, 2016 @ 2:36pm


    Or just put an extra bathroom inside the cockpit.
    Or a bucket....

  • Mar 8th, 2016 @ 2:32pm


    Why would the pilots need to be able to enter the cargo bay? Sure, maybe the avionics bay, but not the cargo bay.

More comments from Eldakka >>