Dan’s Techdirt Profile

danb35

About Dan




Dan’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 16th, 2017 @ 6:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    it's even more troubling when you find out that the company views the service as a profit center:

    Of course it does. If it's a private company, and it's providing a service by contract, it's doing so to make a profit. Which leads back to the question of whether a private company should be running this hotline at all, but if you accept that, of course it's going to be for profit.

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 11:25am

    Wrong documents

    Both the link in the article text, and the embedded document at the end of the article, go to the wrong document--you've linked to an affidavit by an FBI agent, not the complaint in the case you're talking about.

  • Oct 10th, 2017 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Yet you pirates still want his products.

    Well, hell, (even assuming you were being blocked) Masnick's site, his rules. I can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say.

  • Oct 9th, 2017 @ 4:16am

    Re: My opinion

    Your Anti-SLAPP thing will likely fail, as you are in the wrong jurisdiction.

    It isn't that simple; courts in one state apply the laws of other states all the time. How and when to do so is a complicated subject, and I'm not familiar with all the nuances that go into those determinations, but it's definitely not as simple as "we don't do that here."

    Mike says that other circuits have held that the laws of the speaker's jurisdiction (especially anti-SLAPP laws) are to be applied, but that the First Circuit hasn't yet addressed that question. If that's the case, it will be a good, and a fairly strong, argument to make.

  • Oct 8th, 2017 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re:

    Both about his "low caste" status, and about his national/racial origin. The latter is particularly amusing--there are an awful damn lot of people of Indian extraction working in IT, and a good number of the tools and standards that are used throughout the industry were authored or co-authored by Indian individuals. The community has no trouble at all recognizing their work. The community doesn't recognize Shiva's claim because he's lying, not because of his race or status.

    The sad thing is that he can justly be proud of what he _did_ accomplish--to have developed such an involved software package at such a young age is quite an accomplishment. But he isn't satisfied with that, wanting instead to claim something he didn't do. As a result, he's a laughingstock among whoever knows anything about the relevant history.

  • Oct 7th, 2017 @ 6:02pm

    Re:

    Pretty much everything about this is wrong. First, even if the appeal results in a reversal (which is unlikely), the odds are slim that the case ever goes to a jury. Second, if it does, Shiva (not Techdirt) will need to convince the jury, by clear and convincing evidence (not a preponderance), that Techdirt (not Shiva) lied when they said Shiva didn't invent email. That is, Shiva will have to prove, to a high level, that Techdirt knew what they were saying was false, but said it anyway. In order to do that, Shiva will need to prove (also to a high level) that he did invent email, but that's just the start of his burden of proof. And he's the plaintiff, so the burden is squarely on him. And it's unlikely he'll be able to rely on his "email means this highly-specific definition I've invented, not the general system that's been documented as having been around since before I was born."

    You're right about one thing, though: that will be very hard. For Shiva, that is.

  • Oct 2nd, 2017 @ 7:29pm

    Re: Double negative?

    Use any force less often, and use less force when force is used.

  • Sep 27th, 2017 @ 6:55pm

    Re: What is the point?

    > To me that seems more logic because you're sure that parliament supports the government so they can get shit done.

    Gridlock is not necessarily a bug, it's at least partially a feature. The founders intended that the branches of government would act as a system of checks and balances, and there was certainly no original intent to ensure that the congress supported the president.

  • Sep 27th, 2017 @ 6:52pm

    Re: Re: "Quite clear"

    He stated that "it serves no really useful function." Not so much an argument as a bare assertion. If he understood the function(s) it served in 1788, he would understand at least one of the functions it continues to serve in 2017. The representation of the smaller states hasn't gone away as an issue.

    Maybe the electoral college doesn't protect the interests of smaller states very well. Maybe it has other, overriding disadvantages. But to deny that it serves any useful function is just ignorant.

  • Sep 27th, 2017 @ 4:28am

    "Quite clear"

    And, frankly, it's kind of difficult to justify why we still have an electoral college when it's quite clear that it serves no really useful function.

    There are certainly arguments to be made for the abolition of the electoral college, but Chesterton's fence says you aren't qualified to make them. Show that you understand why it's there, and what purposes it serves, then you can consider whether it should be abolished.

  • Sep 17th, 2017 @ 12:44pm

    Re: Uniting Godwin and Streisand?

    Calling him a Nazi is almost certainly a statement of opinion which wouldn't be actionable (regardless of how many or few people would agree with the opinion). The other claims, according to JLVD's complaint, are (1) JLVD was convicted of weapons charges and domestic violence; (2) as a result of (1), JLVD is prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, and therefore his possession of firearms is illegal; and (3) JLVD has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The "open letter" JLVD attached to his complaint clearly states (1); (2) and (3) are less clearly stated, but are at least mentioned. Those are statements which purport to be factual; if false, they are actionable.

    OTOH, JLVD filing the action in Texas is crap, and the action should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

  • Mar 28th, 2017 @ 3:41am

    (untitled comment)

    What it means is that, in Georgia, professional practitioners, with access to the expensive official annotated code, are the only ones able to truly understand the law -- and the average everyday Georgian cannot.

    Bullshit. First, the "expensive official annotated code" in the dead-tree version is incredibly cheap--the entire 40-volume hardcover set is about $400, which is dirt cheap for a 40-volume set of hardcover books; you can hardly buy paperbacks for $10 each any more. It's much less expensive than the competing annotated code published by West. Second, as you yourself mention, Lexis operates a website that makes the code available to the public at no cost. Third, if that website is really so unusable, or its terms of use really so objectionable, you can access a copy for free at your local county law library.

    Finally, having access to the annotated code, as opposed to the unannotated code, is not going to turn a layman into a lawyer. Simply reading the annotations is not going to take the sales from his eyes and give him clarity as to the meaning of the text. Certainly the annotations will help, but they're not going to make the difference.

  • Nov 22nd, 2016 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Trust?

    Replying to my own comment--no, the bogus trust has nothing to do with SEO. I still haven't parsed through the 30+ pages of gibberish (and I'm pretty sure that making a serious attempt to do so would cause my head to explode), but the short of it is that it's a gambit to attempt to register his independence from the government (at least at the federal, and quite possibly at the state and local levels as well). Here's some further information on the subject for the truly interested: https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/Sov%20citizens%20quick%20guide%20Nov%2013.pdf

  • Nov 22nd, 2016 @ 11:19am

    Trust?

    That's some pretty bizarre word salad on the UCC financing statement linked as the "trust". Sounds like it's related to the "sovereign citizen" nonsense. Appointing the Secretary of the Treasury as your fiduciary? Very ballsy. Much chutzpah. Wow.

  • Nov 22nd, 2016 @ 9:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Big Blue

    Sure, they can control entry to the grounds, but that doesn't help them when I'm watching the game on TV.

  • Nov 22nd, 2016 @ 8:54am

    Re: Big Blue

    Agon may simply be butt hurt that they don't have the same kind of control over their 'events' that the NFL has over their games.

    They shouldn't be too upset--the NFL doesn't have the control they think (or at least claim) they have, either. "Any accounts of this game without the express written permission of the NFL are prohibited" is simply a false statement of the law, and I'm equally free to tweet, blog, broadcast, or whatever, my account of any game I choose with no permission whatsoever--and for the same reason that Chess24 won here.

  • Nov 21st, 2016 @ 1:51pm

    Statute of Limitations

    Aside from the obvious Section 230 problem, there's also the minor issue of the statute of limitations--in DC, it's one year for defamation. Sounds like the blog posts were 2+ years old, and DC has the Single Publication rule.

  • Nov 14th, 2016 @ 6:15am

    Supposed breach?

    A "supposed breach"? No, that's an actual data breach--the data left their control without their knowledge or permission. And it left in a particularly stupid manner, too. It does sound like the FTC's overreaching (and greatly so), but don't minimize the degree of LabMD's fail here.

  • Oct 20th, 2016 @ 6:51pm

    Re: They'll Be Missed

    When the Centers for Disease Control sees crime as a disease, they're clearly well outside their charter. Congress is funding them to address disease control and prevention (their name is a bit of a clue), and violent crime has nothing to do with that mandate.

  • Oct 20th, 2016 @ 3:22am

    Re: Re: 'You already lost one eye, want to lose even more?"

    Hmmm... Is there any politician or leader in Turkey who might be accurately described as "thin-skinned children masquerading as adults, throwing tantrums when people say mean things about them"? Maybe someone who's been covered here from time to time?

More comments from Dan >>