ikeboy

52 ms·

541.
by ikeboy 7y ago
They tried and seller denied the return, against Amazon policy.
542.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Amazon may suspend your account for doing so. It happened in the case I linked at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22388122
543.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Amazon takes the position that this counts as "soliciting payments from buyers outside of Amazon", which is prohibited by the ToS. See https://www.facebook.com/lalawgroup/posts/1719796444820559 My unders
544.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>I denied the return. And that's your problem. If you deny a return within the return period, you're in violation of Amazon policy, and the A-Z team will rightly rule against you. The correct response is to accept the return, t
545.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Bumped into this recently and thought it was extremely interesting. They have real antennas in each city, and are just streaming from those antennas to consumers over the internet. As the link mentions, it was previously tried by a commerci
546.
Locast – non-profit using a legal loophole to stream live TV for free(en.wikipedia.org)
3 points by ikeboy 7y ago|1 comments
547.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Note that Warren isn't claiming that everyone is poorer, rather specifically middle-class households that chose to buy expensive housing to get into better school districts. Her argument can be read as saying that housing/educatio
548.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It might be time deaf but it's also true. Inflation is measured by looking at what people actually buy - it will measure iPads to the extent people are spending money on iPads. Now, if working class people spend less than average on iP
549.
by ikeboy 7y ago
EPI is cheating in that graph by using two different deflators to produce false data. See https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/6rtoh4/produc... and the PIIE link there for an accurate graph.
550.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Cherry picking by looking at males only, which somehow didn't make it into the title here in what I'm sure was an innocent oversight. It's also flat out lying by saying "earn same" - the tweet only claims earning en
551.
by ikeboy 7y ago
If and when they get sued and found guilty of spamming or improper handling of subpoenas, I'll gladly admit I was wrong. Just in case you missed all my previous comments: lying is bad regardless of the target.
552.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Recently got hit with this with QuickBooks. They actually charged me a fee to refund that was higher than the original fee charged. They think they deserve 3.5% on top of the initial 2.9% to send money back.
553.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>Having agents of your company who have received a warrant addressed to your company pretend that your company has not received it, whether the purpose is to evade the warrant or to avoid drawing attention to your fraudulent front compan
554.
by ikeboy 7y ago
No, I'm not. OP is substantively wrong on their claims, not just semantically. The difference between illegal and legal is not semantic. You're the one defending someone who's wrong. Also, I'm not defending the fraud, bu
555.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>the fraud of the independence of the “Channel Partners” You still don't get it. The fraud was submitting false documentation to ARIN. Operating multiple shell companies is perfectly legal, as long as you don't submit false swo
556.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I'll defend whoever I like when someone makes incorrect claims. Although here I'm mainly trying to clarify the law. People taking OP at face value will come away with a very incorrect impression of what's legal and not. Also,
557.
by ikeboy 7y ago
To be clear, my comments were pointing out that what's described was not criminal. I didn't take a position on what's ethical or not. That said, I think helping VPNs is a good thing ethically. If he'd been arrested for r
558.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>The article addresses some of the mechanisms by which they were used to evade legal process for the purpose of concealment No, it doesn't. It says they responded to subpoenas for each entity. >the indictment deals with the fact
559.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>knowingly profiting by enabling spam Your source doesn't say that. I read the indictment and it doesn't charge them for "knowingly profiting by enabling spam".
560.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I have no relationship to any of the entities involved. I'm just pointing out how clueless OP is. And I was somewhat taken aback at how much pushback I got based on people completely misreading the article. It's one thing to disag
561.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>How is it not fraudulent to deceive potential investors by using false user data/stats? Where did that happen? It certainly isn't alleged by OP.
562.
by ikeboy 7y ago
What other charges are there?
563.
by ikeboy 7y ago
To spell this out: OP appears to be saying that the "channel partners" were the shell companies. Hence why Micfo was responding as the channel partners and why subpoenas went to them. He also says: >Our largest customer would s
564.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>The "customers" that just happen to be the very same shell companies described at trial, engaged in the very same shenannigans with "their" IP addresses? Those customers? Where are you getting this from? I admittedly
565.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>The core allegation in the Micfo case is that the company fraudulently obtained 800k IP addresses from ARIN using fake companies. The author of this post corroborates handling large quantities of the the PTR record changes for these com
566.
by ikeboy 7y ago
No, they were not charged for any of the things claimed to be crimes in the article. The trial is about different alleged wrongdoings than OP is going on about.
567.
by ikeboy 7y ago
See my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22361670 None of the things mentioned here are crimes, as far as I can tell. The crime they were actually charged with was using these shell companies to get more IP ad
568.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The author does not allege that. >But your claim was that this was unrelated to the trial. The response was that, no, it actually corroborated the core allegation in the Micfo case. Now you're misreading both OP and the response t
569.
by ikeboy 7y ago
As far as I can tell, those shell companies were to get additional IP addresses out of ARIN. It's not been alleged that they were customers of Micfo running spamming etc services, by anyone except you.
570.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I read the entire post. Can you please quote the part you're referring to?

More ›