HideTechdirt is off today for Memorial Day. We'll be back with our regular posting schedule tomorrow!
HideTechdirt is off today for Memorial Day. We'll be back with our regular posting schedule tomorrow!

Kal Zekdor’s Techdirt Profile

kalzekdor

About Kal Zekdor




Kal Zekdor’s Comments comment rss

  • May 21st, 2017 @ 2:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh, GPL.

    I'll cop to being somewhat off-topic, but how is this trolling? Just last week had to write a library from scratch (that was pretty basic) because GPL is incompatible with pretty much any of my clients' environments. It gets frustrating. If you want to open source your code, open source your code.

    End of rant.

  • May 21st, 2017 @ 2:21pm

    Re: Last 21 digits of Pi

    Of course, if I did that, I would literally set my password to "the last twenty-one digits of PI", just so that when then finally figure it out I could simultaneously defuse the situation while smugly giving them a second finger.

    ...I'm not a nice person.

  • May 17th, 2017 @ 7:35pm

    Meh, GPL.

    I'll take an MIT license project over a GPL or derivative any day of the week.

  • May 12th, 2017 @ 9:01am

    Re:

    Yeah, Bankruptcy can be weird. In short, the company declaring bankruptcy sells off assets to cover their liabilities. So they can sell off the assets of a business unit (in this case including domains, server infrastructure, IP, advertising accounts, etc.) to another company, while they retain any liabilities. Now, in this case "liabilities" refers to the accounting term, meaning "money that is owed", not civil liability, so I think someone down the chain got confused.

    Now, any action taken by the business unit prior to the sale could not be held against the purchasing company, any suits would need to be directed at the bankrupt company. The new company is then potentially liable for any action taken once they're in charge. In this case, though, there seems to be a provision in libel laws (this "first publication" rule) that's a little outside my knowledge, but seems to limit liability to the original publication of content (i.e., when Gawker was in charge), even if it's still being "published" (available on the Internet). It doesn't seem to apply in all states, and any significant subsequent alterations to the content can result in the rule ceasing to apply.

  • May 2nd, 2017 @ 11:06pm

    I am the system administrator.

    My voice is my passport. Verify me.

  • Mar 22nd, 2017 @ 8:40am

    Re: Re:

    Again, even if pages are encrypted, whoever is buying the data will see the URLs you visited. Say, on the pages on a medical site dealing with specific and embarrassing medical conditions, teen pregnancy, etc.

    This is not accurate. Barring a TLS MitM attack, HTTPS URLs are encrypted and not available to your ISP. They will certainly have access to the IP address of the server you're connecting to, and unless you are using encrypted DNS they'll have access to the domain, but not the full URL. So, for example, my ISP can tell I'm reading techdirt, but not which article I'm looking at.

    It's feasible to determine the length of a URL from the encrypted data. I'm not sure how problematic that is, but I recall discussions about adding random padding to prevent such things to the TLS spec. Dunno if anything ever came of it.

  • Mar 16th, 2017 @ 11:38pm

    Re:

    I won't go so far as to say expect, I'm not that naive, but I certainly demand politicians who don't accidentally stumble into a correct stance merely because something became personal for them. It galls me to no end when politicians are imperiously ignorant to the consequences of their actions, so long as those consequences don't touch them personally. It clearly shows that they don't see themselves as the servant of their constituents, but as the rightful occupant of a seat of power. This isn't about fucking bias. Whether "12333 needs oversight" is a correct position is completely fucking irrelevant. That he came to that position not through the wishes of his constituents, but because his personal power was challenged should fucking alarm and infuriate you. That's how a ruling class behaves, something we should not, and must not tolerate.

  • Feb 21st, 2017 @ 4:06pm

    Re: Surprisingly

    Look, if you want to argue that those being deported for illegal immigration should have to forfeit any assets they have, that's one thing. There's plenty of arguments against that, which I'm not going to get into here, but it's at least a logically defensible position. That's not what we're talking about when we discuss "asset forfeiture", though. Law enforcement officials have no need to prove that someone is in the country illegally, or have committed any sort of crime, in order to seize their assets. It's horribly open to abuse, as has been shown time and time again.

    Even if someone does eventually manage to navigate the byzantine appeals process and reclaim their assets, so much time has passed by then (months, if not years), that real losses have been sustained. It's not like they get back their assets with interest.

    Arguing that the assets of people convicted of a crime are subject to seizure is one thing. Arguing that LEOs can seize whatever they want, on whatever grounds they feel like, from people who are not only not convicted of a crime, but in many cases are not even charged with one, is insane.

  • Feb 21st, 2017 @ 3:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Funding Governemnt

    Seriously. Even if you start with the a priori assumption that illegal immigration is an existential problem, how the frak do you think building a wall is going to help anything? Do you how know how the bigger smugglers/coyotes cross the southern border? Tunnels. Giant, miles-long tunnels that go right past the border. And the solution to stop this is... build a wall? My brain hurts.

  • Feb 6th, 2017 @ 4:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt

    ...and the vast majority of the people banned are Muslim.

  • Feb 6th, 2017 @ 4:13pm

    Re: The I.T. Sector see this as a 'Canary in the Coal Mine' Scenario...

    So, let me get this straight. American workers aren't able to compete with foreign workers. They demand that the government step in to regulate the private sector, forcing companies to hire American workers, regardless of the costs involved. In order to effect those demands, these people vote for the party which espouses laissez faire capitalism, and to which the very idea of regulations is anathema.

    ...That chain of logic broke somewhere.

  • Jan 27th, 2017 @ 3:02pm

    Re: Makes sense

    Please post your full name, street address, birthdate, SSN, phone number, email address and password, marital status mother's maiden name, and the name of your first pet.

    Put up or shut up.

  • Jan 27th, 2017 @ 2:53pm

    US First

    Look, I get the US first mindset. I do. There are plenty of real problems here at home, and it can be frustrating to see so much time, effort, and money spent towards problems that don't even affect us. The US should not be acting as world police (and, indeed, doing so for the most part just pisses other nations off).

    However!

    With that said, it's doubly important to think about chained effects. Shit like this is dangerously short-sighted. Like it or not, we live in a global community. When we do shit like this, it sends a message that it's "us against the world", and that's a very dangerous message to send. Look at what Obama did after the Snowden leaks, he pulled back on intrusive surveillance of allied nations. Was this because he cares one whit about privacy? Obviously not, given what he sanctioned within our own nation. No, he curtailed some of the more egregious programs because our allies were pissed off about it, and he wisely avoided a major diplomatic incident. This is something Trump desperately needs to learn. Shit like this tends to escalate. It won't be long before our allies, let alone the rest of the world, takes this a step further in response.

    Fuck, say what you will about Hillary, (she would have been fairly terrible on domestic issues, in my opinion), but at least she understands international politics.

  • Jan 22nd, 2017 @ 9:12pm

    Re: Fan film?

    Suppose they wanted to design a really great car but instead of making their own brand, used recognizable design elements of and stuck Ford labels on them and sold them?

    Please do some research on the difference between Copyright and Trademark law before posting again. Thank you.

  • Jan 22nd, 2017 @ 9:08pm

    Re: Re:

    Not sure what you're talking about. Which corporation won anything? The law firm? 'cause Paramount/CBS are only losing free revenue, marketing, and good will, thanks to this "settlement". This is a classic example of a company shooting themselves in the foot due to copyright tunnel vision.

  • Jan 11th, 2017 @ 11:42am

    Re:

    I know you're being facetious, but, no, I'm not surprised. Trump only cares about Trump. He's all for redefining libel when it enables him to sue news outlets, but he once he realized that he can be sued for some of his behavior under the new libel definition, he put the brakes on immediately.

  • Jan 10th, 2017 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re: this is great...

    ...Isn't that what he just said?

  • Jan 9th, 2017 @ 7:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smoke Screen detected

    How can we take any moral high ground

    I think I see the problem, here. There's no such thing.

  • Jan 9th, 2017 @ 3:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Smoke Screen detected

    "Your Honor, he left his front door unlocked! It would have been a crime not to take everything that wasn't nailed down!"

    "Excellent point, case dismissed!"

  • Dec 16th, 2016 @ 6:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Now Obama is spouting off about the election being hacked

    Stop playing red team/blue team.

    There are no other teams with any chance to win so red/blue is what we have for now.

    Well, that went over your head.

More comments from Kal Zekdor >>