The only reference I found to their hedge fund said that it hasn't launched yet, not that it has failed.

My interpretation of this document is that the initial attempt at creating the fund failed and those involved were trying to salvage it. http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/400961_fw-failure-of-strat...

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.

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. Unless you were a source for them, or a buyer of their more confidential information, you won't be directly affected by this leak.

And he's saying that this change is for the worse. He has made substantive arguments, and you have responded with a useless platitude.

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, which is decidedly not like mailing a letter with no envelope.

I think that another company brought to light during the last week was not using https. This may be adding to the confusion.

Path said it was sending over HTTPS, but storing in plaintext - protected by a firewall. No server-side encryption.

That's still not like sending a letter without an envelope.

There are no straw man arguments in this entire thread, let alone the comment you replied to.

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.

I dispute that the law "requires" prosecution.

I see no slippery slope in his argument. Singing Happy Birthday in public is actually a copyright violation, right now.

De dure, not de facto. Show me a report of someone getting arrested for it. Hence my accurate description of his ridiculous scenario appealing to a slippery-slope style train of thought. Case closed.

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.

It is not an analogy. What is the analogue? The slope is descending from now (you cannot get arrested for singing happy birthday) to then (you can). Slippery.

This is just a friendly suggestion to edit that second sentence - it threw me for a bit.

GOOD CALL. This is why I should not post on HN while waiting for my tests to run.

This sounds more like the original iTerm than the newer iTerm2 to me. They're separate projects.