madasahatter’s Techdirt Profile


About madasahatter

madasahatter’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 26th, 2018 @ 3:47pm


    Not really surprised given most prosecutors want to win cases not find justice. There have been a few who cared about justice to the point of not prosecuting someone because they did not believe the defendant was guilty but the circumstantial evidence seemed to point to guilt.

    The old Dana Andrews movie "Boomerang" is based on a 1924 unsolved murder in Bridgeport, CT where the DA (Homer Cummings in real life) refused to prosecute the defendant. He spent 90 minutes debunking the state's case much to the disgust of many. The case was never solved.

  • Nov 26th, 2018 @ 3:41pm

    Re: Re: Not a hard problem to fix, or at least vastly reduce

    If the samples are sent blind to the labs selected randomly from a list that would make collusion much less of a problem. The other is to have an FDA type list of bad apples who are banned from the industry.

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 3:24pm

    Father Like Son

    Andrew's father Mario was about as arrogant and bad. Mario got in pissing contest with the Seneca Indians over whether NY had tax jurisdiction on the reservation (short answer no state does). Needless to say the Senecas won by the simple expedient of shutting down the section of the NY Thruway which ran through the reservation. The locals in Western NY solidly backed the Senecas.

  • Oct 27th, 2018 @ 7:26am


    There are 2 types of warnings: general and specific. General warnings include 'always use a different, strong password for each site requiring log in credentials'. General warnings are about practices that could cause one serious trouble later. And these apply to everyone involved. General concern about corrupting the supply chain are always valid. Specific warnings, which the Bloomberg post described, are just that, something very specific that only apply directly to specific people. An example is a food recall for E-coli contamination. If you are not in the affected region and do not have the affected product, it is something you can safely ignore. But if you have the affected product, you need to do something. By describing something specific, Bloomberg described a problem that could be checked by those with requisite equipment and skills. If no one can confirm the problem (very difficult to prove a negative) then it is likely Bloomberg made a mistake.

  • Oct 20th, 2018 @ 7:05am

    Re: Yes, but first they must be an actual reporter

    One must remember the average journalist for a major news organization is a journalism major. A major that does has a reputation for being academically weak. While some journalists are genuinely curious about how the world really works, most are not. Also, now too many reporters do not have the wisdom to realize they are often being played by their sources and fail to ask the pertinent questions about the motivation of their sources. Add the competitive nature of the business were juicy stories get headlines even they remotely look plausible by the editors.

    So a couple dim journalists got played by some sources who have a murky agenda. They ran with the story without asking some other experts about the plausibility of the story. One of the keys of the story as I heard it was there was an extra chip on the motherboard.

    Anyone who has ever looked at a motherboard would realized that a good inspection would catch this and the QA department would reject them as not meeting the specifications. Manufacturers will have a specification attached to the contract even if it 'use model xxx as specified in the supplier's document yyy attached'. This is something anyone in manufacturing would be familiar with and would be familiar with incoming inspection procedures.

  • Oct 19th, 2018 @ 3:15pm

    Re: Re: look out NFPAyou're next

    This ruling if carried to its proper logical conclusion says if the law incorporates something the incorporated parts are part of the law. Since the law cannot be copyrighted, the incorporated standards, as part of the law, cannot have a copyright.

    The same reason the annotations can be copyrighted applies to standards included by reference is that they integral to understanding and properly applying the law.

  • Aug 29th, 2018 @ 2:51pm

    Re: Re: Comcast

    Actually any device with a guest account could have this problem. If it is setup by default many may never reset the credentials.

  • Aug 25th, 2018 @ 6:22am

    Not Surprised

    The problem with adopting infantry style tactics by the police is the fundamental difference between military and proper police tactics. Infantry tactics are about seizing and defending positions from other well equipped foes. In the case of seizing a position, minimizing time is a key element to maintain offensive movement and minimize casualties. In almost all (not all) police situations, waiting is an ally as you are not dealing often with a large, well organized force that is truly cohesive (gangs are nasty but not well organized fighting groups). So once you have a group isolated, you can often sit and wait for them to give up. Not very sexy or photogenic but effective.

    The few times a SWAT time would be useful they are often not immediately available. It is the first on the scene that have to deal the situation with whatever they have with them. And it may be over by the time SWAT shows up.

    One case people claim SWAT would have useful was UT Tower massacre by Charles Wightman(?). But in reality he was taken done by a scratch force of police and civilians (using their private weapons) who stormed the tower and killed him in a shootout. Here, it was the availability of people on the scene with weapons that stopped it.

    Also, once a valid warrant is issued, the timing of the execution can be done to minimize risk to the everyone. For example a search warrant does not need to served at 4 AM but can served at a more civil hour. Same for an arrest, one does not need to storm the residence but can wait for time and place where that is not necessary.

  • Jul 27th, 2018 @ 3:57pm

    (untitled comment)

    That few, Amazon needs some more work.

  • Jul 26th, 2018 @ 2:06pm


    I was thinking the same thing. The fallacy is that Voksi is the only person who can crack Denuvo when there are many more with skills to do so if they try. They will end up playing 'whack-a-mole'.

  • Jul 5th, 2018 @ 4:00pm

    Another One Bites the Dust

    Copyright as it is structured in the US can be argued to be unconstitutional. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to set up patents and copyrights for the purpose of promoting useful arts and science. It is understood to be a limited period not something like 150 years or so as it is now.

  • Jun 22nd, 2018 @ 4:04pm


    He has the correct interpretation. Records created by the action of the individual should be treated as if they are owned by the individual regardless of the actual possessor of the record. Yes this slows down a case as warrant is needed to get the records but it stops fishing expeditions. In reality, I doubt there would be any real difficulty in getting a warrant for the records of legitimate suspect.

  • May 26th, 2018 @ 6:16am

    Historical Note

    GPDR came about because of a few well known sleazes (looking at you Zuckerberg) who believed any user data they can get and use is theirs for the taking. The problem was the usage. Many were not using it to possibly benefit the user but to benefit themselves first. There is a big difference between an email from a retailer you have bought from in the past and a targeted ad based on a user profile generated by combining personal data together.

    When an idiot like Zuckerberg says there is no reason for privacy one has to wonder if really knows what the issue is. The problem is most people do not share all their personal details to everyone they come into contact with. This is normal as certain relationships require a very limited sharing of personal information. And when their are children involved most parents try to limit who, what, where of their children's information which almost always limiting the parents' information. Those of us who have been around the block a couple of times have learned the painful lesson not to willy-nilly trust anyone with personal information as will often come back to hurt you if you are not careful.

    Thus, amoral idiots like Zuckerberg create a serious problem by hiding behind shysterly EULAs. This often triggers an overreaction from the politicians, hence GPDR or the equivalent.

    It should be noted most of the wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth is from companies who are not used to a very strict privacy regime. Those who are in industries like healthcare are already under stringent legal obligations very similar to GPDR when comes to personal information and its use. Not to say it is not overkill for most situations.

    The interesting part is the fine structure which is unusual. The fines are set up to give a balance sheet a real hurt. This will make the C-suites and other pointy-hairs take notice and actually do something. Also, it could expose them to investor wrath when maximum fines hit a couple of times. I think this deliberate; make the fines steep enough that a couple of hits will anger the stockholders enough that they will intervene and replace the current mismanagement.

  • May 18th, 2018 @ 4:39pm

    Re: NJ...The Garden State

    Growing up in the 'Sewer of the nation' I could see this happening as the state government was rife with corruption back then and I doubt it has changed. I suspect the real reason was an attempt to shake down the pizza joint.

  • May 8th, 2018 @ 10:10am

    Paywalls & Newsites

    One problem with paywalls is one might be interested in 1 or 2 articles a year from a site. Also, for a paywall to work, the reader has to believe the site is worth the money. Most general news sites are not worth spending any money on give the generally poor job they do reporting any stories.

    The reason ads are detested are many and it is both the fault of the ad flingers and the sites for not controlling them and allowing them do interact to much with browsers. Fix the ads and you might see more ads displayed. Plus, ignore the hype about overly targeted ads as they are about as effective as a generic ad.

    What some YouTubers are doing is using funding sources such as Patreon to get people to voluntarily pay a few bucks a month to keep the site going. Watch your costs carefully and you can have a viable site but you are probably not going to get rich.

  • May 1st, 2018 @ 3:28pm

    Re: Another blast from the past...

    I think the problem is not that many object to ads per se but that ads that put our computers at risk, interfere with browsing, etc. Basically the ones you mentioned.

    The problem for most advertisers is the deliberate click through rate is dismal. Plus, Wanamaker's dictum comes into play - "Half the money spent on advertising is wasted, but you do not which half".

  • Apr 28th, 2018 @ 6:16am


    These two patents should run afoul of prior art. Amazon has been making recommendations since I can not remember (at least 14 years or so). Google has been returning search results based on a text string for about 20 years now. For that matter the whole idea of targeted ads is based on variation of both what Amazon and Google do.

  • Apr 21st, 2018 @ 5:50pm

    Re: Re: DNC lawsuit

    Also, the Russian activities were to stir the pot on both sides to raise the tensions. What is missing is whether the Russians really cared who won and what is their long term goal. I suspect their long term goal is stir up enough trouble to hamstring any administration and hopefully keep them distracted to give Russia more wiggle room. The effectiveness is not measured by who won but how much turmoil results; I would say it was extremely effective.

  • Apr 21st, 2018 @ 5:40pm

    Re: Re: Doesn't this open the DNC to discovery?

    Only if they are party of the suit. Otherwise, no.

  • Apr 21st, 2018 @ 5:36am


    With Watergate, a break-in in progress was discovered and the guilty were caught. Eventually, the connection to Nixon's campaign was discovered and later Nixon's involvement in the cover up.

    In 2016, we have an incompetent DNC IT staff not properly secure the servers. The strong possibility of a DNC insider being the source. Plus the fact Hilary run an incompetent campaign as if she never bothered to read the Constitution.

More comments from madasahatter >>