andreyf

11 ms·

61.
by andreyf 9y ago
Still FUD. When someone distributes something under BSD and spends non-negligible resources promoting that software, they lose the ability to sue people for using it, because the language of the license says "you may use this". Th
62.
by andreyf 9y ago
> It might not stand up in court, but I do think it's obviously unethical to release patent-encumbered "FOSS" without mentioning your patents and then demand users obtain a license after the fact. I would be amazed if some
63.
by andreyf 9y ago
This sounds like FUD. When has a simple license like BSD been interpreted to not grant rights to the patents implemented in the technology being licensed? The language there is really clear.
64.
by andreyf 9y ago
What would their case be? "Yes, we gave away the software and documented it and paid designers to design it all pretty and spent marketing effort promoting it but nobody is allowed to use it because it's patented technology"?
65.
by andreyf 9y ago
False: an implicit patent grant means that by open sourcing a piece of software you imply that people can, you know, use it.
66.
by andreyf 9y ago
IANAL, but most likely: nothing. Less likely: Facebook counter-sues you for patent infringement and (maybe?) has a slightly better case as long as you keep using it. Your lawyers tell your engineers to rewrite everything without Facebook te
67.
by andreyf 9y ago
A tech pledge to support user privacy which ignores the risk and market dynamics of security breaches? The mind boggles... How about dedicating resources to making sure everyone upgrades their devices, patches security vulns on internet-fac
68.
by andreyf 9y ago
Not much of a singer, but I do have a propensity to whistle or hum when I'm happy! This would make sense if we were making an exhaustive list of "potentially reflexive behavior which people may engage in but should not in this com
69.
by andreyf 9y ago
> signaling ingroup membership, belittling others, etc Good call. I'm certainly not an authority on being well-adjusted, but for me personally, those sound like seeds planted in insincerity leading to a varied bouquet of suffering.
70.
by andreyf 9y ago
I consciously try to be sincere and present my emotions accurately. I think that's generally a good rule of thumb. > you can feign surprise at someone's ignorance not because you're really surprised but to berate them On p
71.
by andreyf 9y ago
Words mean things. Feigned surprise is when you pretend to be surprised but are not really.
72.
by andreyf 9y ago
So by "feigned reflex" you mean "lying or pretending automatically"? What you are describing has nothing to do with being surprised that someone is, e.g. trying to write a bitcoin client without understanding what a sock
73.
by andreyf 9y ago
That's simply not what that word means, and tacking on exaggeration a totally different social behavior displayed by different people with different purposes. feign |fān| verb [with object] — pretend to be affected by (a feeling, state
74.
by andreyf 9y ago
Feigned reflexive behavior? That's some sociopathic shit. > Such behaviours have strong roots in childhood and often a rational adult who has it brought to their attention will easily be able to never do it again lol! no. I do agree
75.
by andreyf 9y ago
This rule always struck me as a bit fundamentally blind to and micro-managing of human interaction. Why would someone ever feign surprise? I feel like I rarely feel the need to feign emotions and surprise have never been one of them.
76.
by andreyf 9y ago
No, because they'd be entering my house. If I send an SMS, however, it goes out of my house, you see? Discretion of investigators, prosecutors, and judges means that the "you break federal laws every day" is a no-op argumen
77.
by andreyf 9y ago
Yeah, and cops can murder people. The solution isn't to take away their guns. Good call re: NSL. I don't quite understand why investigators need NSL instead of a court order. Avenues for abuse seem relatively clear with no obvious
78.
by andreyf 9y ago
Not only do they "promise" but they realize they'd be violating the legal boundaries placed on their organization if they do. Arguing they shouldn't have the capability for this is like arguing the army shouldn't be
79.
by andreyf 9y ago
Huh? Yes, there's propaganda on all sides, and always has been, but the dystopian reality-surrender of NiT EiP does not immediately follow in the least. People paying attention have a very clear grasp on what is true and what is possib
80.
by andreyf 9y ago
And what will you need to show to obtain said rubber stamp? This is not secret, either: Search for "how FISA works" here: http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files...
81.
by andreyf 9y ago
> Not to mention the FISA court process being oddly rubber-stampy. Despite claims that they try really-really hard to get each one right, as an explanation why every single one gets approved. What's wrong with those claims? If the g
82.
by andreyf 9y ago
No. Collection, unlike retention, of US Persons' data is governed via court decisions, not NSA policy. If Congress doesn't like these retention / collection interpretation of their laws, they can clarify them in statute at an
83.
by andreyf 9y ago
Sure, but certainly not to code, content, project assets, and documentation. RMS explains the difference and the intention behind the confusion well: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
84.
by andreyf 9y ago
Fair point: I taught my daughter never to threaten at about 6 years old. The way I see it, even at Google, small M&A deals are just staffed by a bunch of aggro nerds who have a lot more "egoistic hot shot" than "civilized
85.
by andreyf 9y ago
Yes. All very different from "car, house, boat".
86.
by andreyf 9y ago
"Do we want to build this or buy this" is a pretty typical decision at all large companies, no? Wouldn't it be supremely strange if Google acquired something without at least considering building it internally?
87.
by andreyf 9y ago
And when you say "property", you mean "intellectual property", right? Those are some pretty different things, you know ;-)
88.
by andreyf 9y ago
Fair 'nuff, didn't realize another airline was involved. Seems clear to me that everyone is at fault for not standing up in the face of something so blatantly wrong and inhumane happening.
89.
by andreyf 9y ago
United is who called airport security to forcibly de-board someone, likely in violation of their contract with them: https://www.facebook.com/erik.bauman/posts/10106083654220072 The crew should absolutely have exh
90.
by andreyf 9y ago
That question has nothing to do with shorting stocks and everything to do with vulnerability disclosure: http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/win-usa-04/bh-win-04-g...

More ›