petegrif

23 ms·

1. 211.▲
   by petegrif 15y ago

   Just a GREAT post. Thanks.
2. 212.▲
   by petegrif 15y ago

   The good old days!
3. 213.▲
   by petegrif 15y ago

   Beyond pathetic. What a bunch of neolithic morons.
4. 214.▲
   by petegrif 15y ago

   Thanks Ray. Nice tool for reverse engineering then. :)
5. 215.▲
   by petegrif 15y ago

   Very interesting. The reason we didn't want to use GWT was precisely because of the difficulty of debugging. This is a big step in the right direction. The talk emphasizes debugging js as output of another language. But did I understand
6. 216.▲
   by petegrif 15y ago

   How is he going to get there and back without his bones disintegrating? I don't believe the science is there yet.
7. 217.▲
   by petegrif 15y ago

   good question - I don't get it either.
8. 218.▲
   by petegrif 15y ago

   I think the point is well made about Youtube. There was indeed a huge amount of 'pirated' content on Youtube in the early days. Pinterest may be even worse because (a) the UI is specifically designed to make it incredibly easy to copy con
9. 219.▲
   by petegrif 15y ago

   I think this is extremely common. Most people don't read Terms of Service Agreements. And an even higher percentage of people don't read Updates to such agreements.
10. 220.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    I don't think your position would be very compelling in court. By analogy you could argue that adding a movie to your hard drive is 'commenting on it' because its inclusion represents an implicit comment of liking it. And the courts have
11. 221.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    In what way are they different in law? Because surely that's the point, isn't it?
12. 222.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    They don't necessarily make them 'public' in the sense you suggest. They may make them available for viewing on a site (distribution channel) that they have approved for whatever commercial reasons they see fit. They have chosen the chann
13. 223.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    I am pretty sure that foot massage clause is in Apple's ToU. Everything else is.
14. 224.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    I am not sure this will work for them if courts decide that their very modus operandi is to encourage widespread copying. Peer to peer companies argued that they weren't copying, just providing a platform and that others were 'abusing' tha
15. 225.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    Good for you guys. Awesome!
16. 226.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    wonderful news I know 2 people who have had this procedure. Both are well!
17. 227.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    very cool - good job
18. 228.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    May I suggest a rather more innocent possibility wrt Google's intentions? They want us to be able to run high performance apps in the browser. And guess what - most of us would like that.
19. 229.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    Agreed. And I still don't understand Mozilla's problem with NaCl. They argue that js is now nearly as fast as native. Well...even if that were true it ignores the fact that as you point out there is huge investment in legacy code that NaC
20. 230.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    tldr(all) this is a paranoid rambling piece that may just have some sense in it somewhere but it's so incoherently written it's tough to find it.
21. 231.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    Horrific.
22. 232.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    No surprise. But thank god they got it right.
23. 233.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    This should be no surprise. The case was weak. Copyright offers no practical intellectual protection for software. And in this case the software in question was reverse engineered!
24. 234.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    It would be interesting to see a NaCl implementation.
25. 235.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    What a douchebag.
26. 236.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    You are absolutely correct. There are differences between the two industries. The two key ones would seem to be that (a) the investment required in time and money to create the software and its likely lifetime value are low compared with
27. 237.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    That doesn't make any sense. It is the same as writing the software from scratch. The only difference is that the behavior of the original software which is being copied is effectively the spec.
28. 238.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    I am afraid that it is you who evidently does not understand my point. I am not suggesting that some imbecile may transcribe in a manner to blindingly obvious that they may run into trouble. What I am suggesting is that access to the code
29. 239.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    If the Zynga story is as reported it is beyond despicable.
30. 240.▲
    by petegrif 15y ago

    +1