chairface

9 ms·

1.
by chairface 15y ago
Thank you for the reference - I agree, that's the most likely interpretation of the email. I wonder why this wasn't called out more strongly when the hedge fund was mentioned in the press release.
2.
by chairface 15y ago
The only reference I found to their hedge fund said that it hasn't launched yet, not that it has failed.
3.
by chairface 15y ago
You misunderstand. Your email _address_ (and mine) have already been leaked, shortly before Christmas 2011. What WikiLeaks is now publishing is a list of actual internal emails, as in, the content of their internal, private communication.
4.
by chairface 15y ago
That's still not like sending a letter without an envelope.
5.
by chairface 15y ago
And he's saying that this change is for the worse. He has made substantive arguments, and you have responded with a useless platitude.
6.
by chairface 15y ago
This bit is inaccurate, as far as I can tell: > it was also transmitting the data in “plain text.” This would be like mailing a private letter to someone without the envelope. My understanding is that the data was transmitted over https
7.
by chairface 15y ago
There are no straw man arguments in this entire thread, let alone the comment you replied to.
8.
by chairface 15y ago
I haven't read a whole lot on this - could you clarify on the ripping off of IP? edit: I should have read the whole comment thread first - nevermind.
9.
by chairface 15y ago
I dispute that the law "requires" prosecution.
10.
by chairface 15y ago
It's still not a slippery slope. It's an analogy that illustrates what would be possible, de jure. Honestly, there's no slope involved at all.
11.
by chairface 15y ago
I see no slippery slope in his argument. Singing Happy Birthday in public is actually a copyright violation, right now.
12.
by chairface 15y ago
This is just a friendly suggestion to edit that second sentence - it threw me for a bit.
13.
by chairface 15y ago
This sounds more like the original iTerm than the newer iTerm2 to me. They're separate projects.
14.
by chairface 15y ago
Thanks for the info!
15.
by chairface 15y ago
Strawman. A congressperson ought to either be an expert in those things, or listen to those that are.
16.
by chairface 15y ago
I grew up less than a mile away from the Fox River, one of the worst in the state, and I must say, I never thought of myself as saddled with a horrible legacy. There are plenty of places to go if you like being in the water. That's not to s
17.
by chairface 15y ago
I grew up in Wisconsin, and until recently worked there. $120k seems an outrageous amount to me - where are your friends?
18.
by chairface 15y ago
You posited a situation where a group of people (the artists and/or their representatives) got together for the purposes of tricking UMG into illegally issuing a DMCA takedown notice. You don't have even the slightest shred of proof. That
19.
by chairface 15y ago
More ridiculous drivel. The "end result" of my life will be substantially different, depending on how I affect the people around me. Do you have anything to say that's even slightly true?
20.
by chairface 15y ago
> If 'illegal' was as binary as you want to imply, then all penalties would be exactly the same What a ridiculous statement, which bears absolutely no relation to what I said. > This statement implies that UMG was making a deliberat
21.
by chairface 15y ago
> Don't get carried away with conspiracy theories Followed by a conspiracy theory of your own: > I also find it highly probable that this was a targeted effort to get the video into the sights of whatever process it is that UMG uses
22.
by chairface 15y ago
> There is a difference between malice directed towards MegaUpload and (willful) negligence. It's a difference that doesn't matter in the slightest. The organization is acting illegally, and people are rightfully angry about that. Who
23.
by chairface 15y ago
I reread it. It still looks like you're drawing a distinction between a person flagging an "infringing" work, and a bot doing the same. I still think that there is no practical use for this distinction. Where's the strawman?
24.
by chairface 15y ago
We're floating conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence here now?
25.
by chairface 15y ago
I see no practical difference between a human issuing illegitmate DMCA takedown notices, or using a bot to do the same. The difference to the affected party is nil. "The bot made me do it" is not a legal defense.
26.
by chairface 15y ago
I'd say that's putting it nicely. His argument is so specious, I would hesitate to call it an argument. I've seldom read anything on employment where the errors in logic jump quite so far off the page.
27.
by chairface 15y ago
Yes, the copying was primarily of visual design. Of course, in our opinion, it's a poor copy, but they got acquired and we didn't, so who's to say? I just don't see how it's unethical to try to improve on what someone else has done, which
28.
by chairface 15y ago
A lot of successful products are copies of something else, and more power to them. The company I work for* had a competitor make an "embarrassing copy" of our flagship product, and they managed to get acquired because of it. But you know
29.
by chairface 15y ago
Where are the personal attacks on that page? I see none.
30.
by chairface 15y ago
I have read every comment of yours on this thread, and in an effort to be charitable, I have taken a few days to digest your points regarding the status of unvested shares. It occurs to me that in multi-founder situations, founder shares ty

More ›