get what you're saying, but if the "high speeds" were "nearly" 100MPH it's not unreasonable to wonder just how the car got literally ripped in half.

Last year in a town in California, someone who was not being chased, managed to split a compact car completely in half by hitting a tree. The two parts of the car ended up quite a distance from each other. He wasn't driving on a freeway, or a sidestreet, but was on a street with a 35 or 40mph speed limit. Reports said the speed was "up to 100mph"

It wasn't a load problem. The setup was just wrong (recursive resolvers used as authoritative servers didn't answer non-recursive queries correctly). It wouldn't have worked if Microsoft had given it all the CPU power and network capacity in the world. Garbage in, garbage out.

The takeaway is either:

1. No business should use Azure because Azure doesn't scale. OR:
2. No business should rely on Microsoft services, because Microsoft does not have the necessary competence.

This is only the latest in a line of screwups by Microsoft in their service offerings.

So I actually RTFA, and I see that it is 5 million subdomain names. That is a few hundred subdomains implicated as used by botnets against 5 million. It doesn't support a conclusion that No-IP was somehow in league with the botnet operators or that support for botnets was a significant part of No-IP's business.

Microsoft portrayed No-IP as primarily a business making money from botnet operators, but Microsoft only listed a few hundred subdomain names that were implicated. Compared to what I imagine is hundreds of thousands, or millions (or tens of millions) of subdomain names that No-IP must support to have a viable business, it's a tiny fraction.

Microsoft not only didn't report these criminals to no-ip- they actually sealed the court order so they could seize the domains before no-ip found out about it.

Microsoft compounded the problem by having a DNS infrastructure that completely failed to resolve the subdomains that were not implicated in any botnet use.

Perhaps the core problem was rate limiting by No-IP, but Microsoft should have anticipated this.

April 2013: the OpenDNS blog reported that no-ip was the second most popular dynamic-DNS site for malicious software.

In other news, Google is the most popular site for finding <your choice of illegal material here>.

See what I did there? And how the reports of NO-IP's use for malicious software are meaningless?

You never know when they will get killed.

But Streets and Trips is not free. It's still being killed.

Obviously, labor-intensive tasks are cheaper in China because of low wages. Tasks that produce lots of toxic chemicals (such as wafer fabs) are cheaper because of reduced environmental requirements.

But an assembly line manned by robots? Why should that be cheaper in China? Is capital that much cheaper?

And a trademark can be lost if it's shown that you knew about the infringement but did nothing.

Had DC chosen to grant permission, there would be no infringement. There would be no possible loss of DC's rights over the trademark.

If any of the following apply:

1. You write emails in a foreign language

2. You chat with known foreigners.

3. You use an offshore proxy (perhaps to watch sprts events not available on US TV).

4. Your broswer has stored tracking cookies from Yahoo, which advertisers consider unreliable.

These are the reported cases. Prbably there are more. Remember that the NSA claimed that it did not track people if the balance of probabilities showed them to be US citizens, but this shows that, once again, the NSA was lying.

(But we do put loonies in the loonie bin. Hmm!)

At best, only temporarily. Many of the homeless are suffering from various forms of mental illness.

I am somewhat doubtful that Verilog counts as a programming language. SystemVerilog, perhaps, but that isn't mentioned.

Also SQL -- yes, there is a distinct syntax associated with it, but is it a "programming language"?

You do know that takedown notices are supposed to be filed truthfully under penalty of perjury, yes?

No. They don't.

The penalty of perjury only applies to a very small part of the takedown notice -- that the person making the request is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. The rest of the takedown notice is not under penalty of perjury.

5. A statement by you UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.

Except that Vimeo has got it wrong. The law does not say that. Instead it says:

ââ(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

So the perjury part only applies to the claim to act on behalf of someone else and not to the rest of the notice.