HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Eldakka’s Techdirt Profile


About Eldakka

Eldakka’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 4:52am

    (untitled comment)

    The cabinet had no key, so he drilled the lock and...

    I wish someone would drill out the fucking cabinet in Australia, incompetent, self-serving corrupt loonies the lot of em.

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 4:48am


    My favourite line of the Harris' reply e-mail is:

    Thank you for the courtesy of putting your threat in writing.

  • Jan 27th, 2018 @ 4:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Intel's share of the processor market is already decreasing

    The x86/x86-64 ISA is CISC, but the in-silicon processor architecture of the processing cores have been RISC for over a decade.

    Their front-ends are CISCy, but the decode step in the pipeline breaks the instructions down into RISC instructions - what Intel calls micro-ops - for processing on the ALU/FPU. The actual processing cores - ALUs, FPUs, etc - are RISC engines.

  • Jan 23rd, 2018 @ 5:24am


    do these kind of "you have to use our engine for this game" kind of contracts

    The whole point of CIGs submission is that that is not what the contract says.

    Therefore there is no "these kind of" because this isn't one of those contracts.

  • Jan 18th, 2018 @ 6:48pm

    Re: Not quite right...

    Actually, on second thoughts (to my other reply), those may not be the exact words used by the NCCoA, but they fit within the meaning of the ruling.

    By definition, publicly-accessible info is info that anyone is authorized to access.

    Therefore that fits in with the "if you are authorized to access it" element of the ruling.

    Therefore anyone can access public info, and any method used to access the info (manually, with a robot) is not illegal. (of course, this doesn't protect the accessor against harming the hoster, e.g. if the effect was to cause a DoS then they might still be committing an illegal act)

    Therefore the legal precedent set (IANAL) would allow accessing publicly-available information in a manner not authorized by the hoster.

    The headline was not a quote from the NCCoA ruling, it is a headline about the ruling, the effect of the ruling, a description of the ruling, one of the consequences of the ruling. So the headline is correct in its description of an effect of the ruling. So the author of the article chose a headline that they felt covered the most important consequence of the ruling for them and for their reader base.

  • Jan 18th, 2018 @ 6:31pm

    Re: Not quite right...

    How about:

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled [PDF] that accessing information that you are authorized to access but using a method that is not authorized by the hosting entity is not illegal.

  • Jan 5th, 2018 @ 9:36pm

    Re: "Surprisingly, Bangladesh comes in second for duration on the site, and that's with a decent amount of traffic (over 10,000 visitors)."

    Highly unlikely know American language

    You mean English?

    Since Bangladesh was part of the British Empire for ~200 years, wouldn't you think it likely that at least a few % of the population can speak, read and write English? As a country of 150 million people, even if only 1% could read English, that's still 1.5 million people.

    However, after checking out wikipedia (something you could have done - but then, those who are wilfully ignorant don't tend to do any sort of research, do they?) , it is actually quite a sizeable % who can read/write English:

    Bangla is the official language,[231] but English is sometimes used secondarily for official purposes (especially in the legal system). Although laws were historically written in English, they were not translated into Bangla until 1987. Bangladesh's constitution and laws now exist in English and Bangla.[232] English is used as a second language by the middle and upper classes, and is widely used in higher education.

    I would suggest that there are many millions of Bangladeshi's who have a better understanding of English than you seem to have.

  • Dec 29th, 2017 @ 5:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You watch too much police-drama TV.

    There are a few circumstances in which police can detain people for a *reasonable* amount of time - breathalyser tests, for example - without arrest.

    But a lot of what you see on TV when police 'hold' people without letting them leave or issue statements like "don't leave town" have no legal basis or authority behind them.

    If police hold someone for an extended period of time without arrest outside a few very constrained circumstances, they are exposing themselves to charges of false imprisonment or similar.

  • Dec 29th, 2017 @ 5:09pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The way that companies at least attempt to get around that is that they don't sell software, they license it. So it becomes a contractual matter, not a copyright matter. The contract says that by paying this money, you have a license to do whatever the license conditions say you can do with the product. However that license is only valid while the contract is in force. If the contract is terminated you lose the license, if you don't have a license, you are now in breach of copyright if you continue to use the software.

    How well that will stand up in court is a different matter tho.

  • Dec 28th, 2017 @ 7:46pm


    Unfortunately, according to the article, Szakaly no longer owns the business. If the business was sold/transferred in its entirety (as the articles imply) then the new owners are the ones who face the possibility of bankruptcy, not Szakaly himself.

    When a business is transferred to a new owner, the new owner takes on all responsibilities for any existing assets and liabilities - financial, legal - of the business.

  • Dec 28th, 2017 @ 6:05pm


    Those look like pretty standard enterprise agreements to me.

    I work for a large enterprise, we use IBM software, and as part of the license agreement we must install on all servers - whether they use IBM software or not - an IBM piece of auditing software that periodically scans the server for copies of IBM software - and the hardware configuration of the server since most IBM software is licensed per CPU - which is then reported back to IBM so that IBM can charge license fees.

    They also have clauses that let them come in and audit us to ensure we are in compliance with their license conditions.

    And WRT to section 15, again that is pretty standard. As soon as your licensing rights are terminated, you no longer have the right to use their software. You don't have to delete your data, but you do have to delete the software. E.g. if Oracle terminates your rights to use their DBMS, you must delete all copies of their DBMS, not the data files themselves. There are utilities that allow you to export the data directly from the Oracle-formatted files to other formats (even just straight data exports).

  • Nov 21st, 2017 @ 1:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The next sheriff will just ask for consent then. "Who here wants to consent to a body search in order to be allowed to go home?"

    If the students were held outside school hours on such a condition, that would be false imprisonment.

  • Nov 13th, 2017 @ 4:29am


    Despicable Revenue Measures.

  • Nov 13th, 2017 @ 4:22am

    Re: Re: The documentary could stop the show's revenue stream

    Suing over true facts wouldn't have any less basis in law than this copyright suit has.

    I think it would.

    It is pretty cut and dried that a fact is a fact - either it is a fact or it isn't. Determining if something is a fact is generally an objective, measurable process. No (or little) subjective decision making needed.

    However, fair use and copyright - even in the face of the 4-factors test - is still a much more subjective decision than deciding over true facts. Each factor in the 4 factors test is itself a subjective test.

    So while they don't stand much chance over this suit, it's a hell of a lot higher chance (a snowballs chance sitting in the sun on a hot day vs a snowballs chance in hell) than trying to sue over facts.

  • Oct 30th, 2017 @ 5:17am

    Re: Breaking the internet

    It's useless, since the site must use cookies to make sure logged in users are who they say they are. Second, goodbye any sort of site that does things based on sessions. Since it must work without cookies, it must work without sessions. Since that's not possible, they can't comply with the EU regulation. Things like shopping carts that don't require login run into the same issues as sing ons. They don't work without at least a session cookie.

    Based on the wording of the what a cookie is in the linked PDF document, the EU are referring specifically to third-party persistent cookies, not to session or to first-party cookies , as per the sidebox on page 12:

    A cookie is information saved by the user's web browser. When visiting a website, a site might store cookies to recognise the user's device in the future upon their return to the page. By keeping track of a user over time, cookies can be used to customise a user's browsing experience, or to deliver targeted advertisements. First-party cookies are placed by the website visited to make experience on the web more efficient (e.g. they help sites remember items in the user shopping cart, or log-in names). Third-party cookies are placed by e.g. an advertising network to deliver ads to the online user, in the visitor's browser with the purpose of monitoring (through identifiers) their behaviour over time.

  • Oct 27th, 2017 @ 6:35pm

    Re: Censoring?

    Interesting, I didn't notice it when I first saw it and went through it again.

    Words not beeped:
    wankers, shitloads, rooted, fuck.

    The only word beeped that I noticed was cunt.

    Maybe they (or someone - youtube policy?) drew a line there?

  • Oct 25th, 2017 @ 8:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution, Constismooshion... Who cares...

    So basically, 2nd Amendment means fully automatic weapons, mortars, bazookas, guided missiles, tanks

    I would suspect that many of those things you have listed would not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment even if read literally, as individual words would still need interpretation/definition. E.g, "bear arms" I would interpret to at the very least limit it to individual arms, no crew-served weapons, only those able to be carried and used by a single individual.

    But whatever the case, I think it should have been further clarified in actual additional constitutional amendments, rather than left to the courts. The courts are there to interpret the constitution, not to define their own version of it.

    By the way, what is your stance on ex-felons voting? Any reason to abridge that right?

    I don't think ex-felons should have their voting rights removed. I can accept an argument, reluctantly, that serving felons shouldn't have the right to vote. But ex-felons? They should have all their rights re-instated on becoming an 'ex'.

    While we are at it, how about 10-year-olds voting?

    My understanding is that voting rites are state-specific, not federal. Therefore isn't it up to each state to decide on that state's voting criteria (as long as it doesn't run afoul of the various discrimination clauses/amendments)?

    But, since voting is voluntary, I don't see it likely that allowing 10-year-olds to vote would change much, as I doubt many 10-year-olds would be interested enough to vote.

    Those factors aside, I think the voting age should be no higher than the age of legal competence (or whatever it is called, the age when you are legally responsible for your actions and can be tried as an adult), this age is around 14 in many jurisdictions. e.g.

    New York has notably tried most 16- and 17-year-olds as adults for all crimes, even for minor offenses like shoplifting.

  • Oct 24th, 2017 @ 1:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution, Constismooshion... Who cares...

    sigh, that should be "1st amendment".

  • Oct 24th, 2017 @ 1:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution, Constismooshion... Who cares...

    I personally am of the belief that where a constitution has a process for changing it (hello 27 ratified amendments to the US constitution), then it should be followed to the letter.

    If you want to make hate speech illegal, then an amendment should be instituted to make that exception to the 2nd amendment.

  • Oct 15th, 2017 @ 6:18pm

    (untitled comment)

    When news outlets originally reached out to Accenture,

    I hope they failed to connect, otherwise there could be some assault charges being laid!

    What's wrong with "originally tried to contact Accenture"

More comments from Eldakka >>