wnight

26 ms·

241.
by wnight 15y ago
Sort of. But if you played a small form of the recent mortgage scam a police officer would put cuffs on you and take you away for running a Ponzi scheme. Run a large enough one and they bail you out and let you keep profiting on it. I haven
242.
by wnight 15y ago
> a) that you consider yourself to be in possession/authority over the definition of what it means to be American It means being from America, or having adopted the country. You can't be an American just by liking the culture. > and
243.
by wnight 15y ago
It's better than paying them to ruin other people's lives.
244.
by wnight 15y ago
Yes, in the current system if you inject enough money you're virtually certain to receive a patent. Otherwise you wouldn't play again... But, there's no guarantee of reward. Far from it, you've only got a letter of marque, not the ship or c
245.
by wnight 15y ago
What novel ideas did the One-Click patent cover? Seriously. I think we're overpaying. And we're not paying the actual creative types. And we're not paying for what's really useful, just what receives the paperwork and has enough lawyers to
246.
by wnight 15y ago
No rule is safe to ignore - even when they're unjust you usually need to subvert them quietly. But every rule should be examined.
247.
by wnight 15y ago
Why? If she was ready before then, why would you keep her off, and if she wasn't ready, why would you interpret that law as requiring you to let her have an account? All you'll train into her will be a desire to do anything forbidden. Watch
248.
by wnight 15y ago
It doesn't matter. You can''t compare some car mods to all iPhone mods, and you can't assume that the companies' claims have any weight. Even if your analogy didn't stink, and it does, it would still be meaningless because it's just a thing
249.
by wnight 15y ago
> I'm still not quite sure what this "real security" is as opposed to "fake security" that we have now..and I don't think you do either. You haven't brought up one point. You haven't seen one point... Airline security taking the plate a
250.
by wnight 15y ago
Technically, any fallacy is silly. But no, I wasn't attempting to use a fallacy in support of killing elephants. I was flat-out pointing out that his stance on some killing is hypocritical. I agree that shooting the elephant was a dick move
251.
by wnight 15y ago
A case might be made for a few ounces of fish oil being beneficial, but to call meat necessary is intentional blindness. And eating it because you like it is about like shooting it because it'd look nice stuffed. Sport and vanity.
252.
by wnight 15y ago
Do you eat meat?
253.
by wnight 15y ago
> Since apple isn't claiming a law violation They were. Steve Jobs and everyone who still works at Apple would have been okay with it if you were in prison for tinkering with your iPad.
254.
by wnight 15y ago
This is exactly why authoritarians like you prefer less freedom for the people. Because otherwise you can't make them listen to you. And of course you're just as blind to the consequences here as with airline security. You'd sell out everyo
255.
by wnight 15y ago
> You fight for your right to have more security holes in our system. You aren't looking to plug any holes, just place a big flag in front of them and declare them handled. You want security theater the way you want a kiss from mom, to
256.
by wnight 15y ago
> I'm shocked at all the anti-security people here on HN. Only by your misconceptions of useful security, and how it can be cobble together from unrelated and broken parts. > Do you also have no password on you wireless connection O
257.
by wnight 15y ago
But the security isn't necessary. It doesn't stop trivial attacks we could come up with on here, and it's not meant to, it's meant to pacify people like you who demand SOMETHING be done. We'd be safer without the theater because we'd know w
258.
by wnight 15y ago
>Does Apple claim that jail breaking is breaking the law or breaking a contract? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_... Apple claimed it was illegal under the DMCA. They were shot down, and now only claim it v
259.
by wnight 15y ago
> any software is installed under a license Not at all. Software is sold. Until that changes the EULA is irrelevant. Copyright law has specific exemptions for copying a program in memory, etc, for the purposes of executing it. No licens
260.
by wnight 15y ago
Oh course he didn't. That's the point. Maybe having burned a bridge with someone he needs to impress will make him pay more attention next time.
261.
by wnight 15y ago
Exactly, you have nothing to say. He just bothers you because he's got standards and lives up to them.
262.
by wnight 15y ago
It's arbitrary, not legally required, and just stupid. They can enforce whatever they want but when they're this bad at it they're only alienating their users.
263.
by wnight 15y ago
This is because there's no law against it. This is caused by the ease of rogue DMCA takedowns. Any type of content that tends to get noticed gets banned just to avoid the nuisance. Which is exactly what many people predicted non-court based
264.
by wnight 15y ago
> Every user who has uploaded a video has seen the guidelines and agreed to them. Sure. You mean you have to click through them to post. Yeah yeah. Click, click, click. Obviously many who use the site didn't see the guidelines and don't
265.
by wnight 15y ago
Videos of game content pose as much of a (real) legal threat as wearing Nike shoes while having your picture taken. If you don't intend people be able to screenshot the work, don't sell it on a computer. Perhaps in the days of Quake 1 this
266.
by wnight 15y ago
No, I stand by it. If a company doesn't include time for process improvement they have failed. Maybe they haven't tanked yet but the first bend in the road will finish them. This doesn't mean they have to stop and fix every non-problem, but
267.
by wnight 15y ago
> He preaches to the choir but somehow still manages to piss them off with pedantic shit like GNU/Linux. Maybe, just maybe, you aren't in the choir. I'm only saying this because you dismiss things many people find important.
268.
by wnight 15y ago
Or, not, because he hasn't asked for it. He's basically saying, "if you provide tea provide a full tea service or I likely won't like it." If you don't want to provide that, don't. If that's too complicated he repeatedly says "email me an
269.
by wnight 15y ago
Those goods would still have to be shipped to a traditional store, where traditional staff drove in and stood around and dusted it, so you could drive (or whatever) in and get it. As opposed to drop-shipping the most economical one on deman
270.
by wnight 15y ago
Their specific mailing list isn't public, but the list of their customers is, inherently, and anyone can call and ask for the person in charge of coupons. And it's not an either-or thing, so it's a trivial sale. Businesses will offer better

More ›