rayiner

The wink-emoticon is due to the fact that I carefully mirrored the structure of rayiner's comment in my own.

So positive externalities lead to underinvestment, as rayiner noted, because the externalized benefit is captured by someone other than the investor.

A Bengali director, no less (apt for rayiner's case), and his take on colonialism.

I just can't agree with Rayiner that we should escalate more because the current conflict is all-important.

Usual posts by rayiner tend to be rather conservative, and oftentimes, rather pro-government.

I'm not sure how you can not think this is relevant to what Rayiner was saying.

I think rayiner disagrees with you (and I think I do too).

The comment above (by rayiner) is completely correct.

I don't know if this a playful inside joke you and Rayiner share, but if it's a jab, it's a pretty annoying and superficial one.

The point Rayiner was making wasn't partisan.

As usual, rayiner has answered these questions better than I can.

The second point I was making was in response to rayiner stating that arguments can be waived on appeal if not made in a post-trial motion.

Like Rayiner said, in layman's terms, he got off on a technicality." Or Rayiner himself: >"That was his defense.

Rhino paraphrasing Rayiner's analysis: >" Aleynikov definitely violated New York trade secret law.

The discussion was in large part about the legality of the actions, as you can see through Rayiner's comment: >"The Court concluded that he had in fact tried to take 500,000 lines of valuable and mostly proprietary source code, but that his conduct didn't fall within the reach of the two laws charged in the indictment.

Tptacek can bother me because he often presents the best possible form of the counterposition, as can Rayiner.

But Rayiner's point is that it's equally ambiguous in the real world.

Whether or not that turns out to be true, I still don't care for Rayiner's argument.