Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Faulty logic (Score 1) 154

by BronsCon (#47715799) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds
Right, so I'm going to continue paying $10/yr for a domain and some additional amount for disk space and bandwidth, over an issue with an $8/yr service that turned out to be resultant of a bug in their system which they committed to fixing, in fact did fix, and which I was able to confirm had been fixed? Had they *only* fixed it for my specific instance, I likely would have kept the site up, but they fixed the underlying cause of the issue (for everyone), so I didn't feel it necessary to continue spending my own money on it.

If you use GoDaddy's domain privacy service with the spam filtering option enabled and decide to cancel the service, you're welcome, by the way.

Comment: Re:Faulty logic (Score 1) 154

by BronsCon (#47715189) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds
Because they fixed my specific issue and committed to fixing the bug in their system which cause my issue in the first place, which I was able to confirm they had done.

Right before I said I took the site down, in the very same sentence, I also stated:

I got a call from their VP of corporate development, or some such, who was able to immediately resolve my issue and light a fire under the dev team's ass to fix the issue permanently

and I explained, in my first paragraph, the following:

they didn't like the subject matter (a complaint regarding how they handle user-initiated termination of their domain privacy services)

Since the purpose of the site was to bring the issue to light and get it resolved, and the issue was both brought to light and resolved, I saw no reason to continue paying for the domain and wasting disk space and bandwidth to achieve and end I had already achieved.

Comment: Re:Faulty logic (Score 1) 154

by BronsCon (#47714267) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds
Because it wasn't worth my time to pursue it. I wanted my specific issue fixed; in the end, they fixed it. It took much less time and cost them much more money (in the form of lost future income) for me to just cease doing business with them, and I didn't have to miss a day of work to meet with an attorney, and another day to go to court.

If I were Google, fielding a million of these per day, it might be worth my time, though.

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 2) 154

by BronsCon (#47714077) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds
That's unfair to someone filing a legitimate request. Instead, charge a larger sum, on the order of $5 per request, plus $1 per notice (to encourage notices to be batched into single requests and reduce your payment processing costs), with a limit of, say, 100 notices per request, and hold that amount in escrow. Once the window for dispute closes, refund the collected per-notice fee for each request not successfully disputed; if no notices are successfully disputed, also refund the request fee (minus your payment processing costs).

You'll almost immediately see companies start sending notices in batches of 100 (at a potential cost of $105) to reduce the cost of valid notices to just the cost of processing a $105 payment, something on the order of $3, versus the cost of processing 100 $6 payments, which is on the order of $25. You'll also see a sharp decrease in false notices, since one false notice in a batch would cost $6, with each additional false notice in that batch costing $1. I'm sure there would still be enough of them to pay for staff to process all of the incoming requests, though, which would be a win for everyone; the companies having to process the requests wouldn't be out the cost of doing so, and the requests themselves would pay for enough staff to process them in a timely manner, which should make the people filing them quite happy.

Of course, the law would have to allow for this, which I don't think it does at this point. Sadly.

Comment: Re:Faulty logic (Score 4, Interesting) 154

by BronsCon (#47713925) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds
GoDaddy filed a DMCA request against one of my sites a few years back. The site was comprised of entirely original, all-text content (e.g. no images they could claim ownership of, and text entirely from my own fingers), but they didn't like the subject matter (a complaint regarding how they handle user-initiated termination of their domain privacy services), so, rather than contact me to resolve the issue (I had been unable to contact anyone on their end who could do anything for me) they fired off a DMCA takedown request to my VPS provider.

My VPS provider, being a reasonable company, saw that I was hosting several sites and, rather than take down the instance, forwarded the request to me. I contacted them to inform them that I intended to dispute the request and that no content would be removed as a result, they write back indicating that they figured that's what I would do and fully understood as they agreed the request was bogus. I CC'd GoDaddy's support team on that email, as well.

GoDaddy's next move was to file a WHOIS data inaccuracy complaint with ICANN. My next move was to CC their support team on my response to that.

In the end, I got a call from their VP of corporate development, or some such, who was able to immediately resolve my issue and light a fire under the dev team's ass to fix the issue permanently, and I took the site down. Had they worked with me from the start, the site never would have existed in the first place, but that's apparently not how GoDaddy (and, as is clear if you follow the news, other large corporations) wants to run things; they'd rather throw money out the window playing games and bullying people, instead of working with them to solve actual problems people have with their services.

In the end, the 20+ domains I had registered through them ended up on a different registrar and they got some bad PR and a perpetual negative review from me when people ask me (and they often do) who they should register their domains through or host their website with.

Comment: Re:Motive? (Score 2) 358

by BronsCon (#47694935) Attached to: Ebola Quarantine Center In Liberia Looted
I'm in no way defending the use of the word, but I do want to point out that there has been somewhat of a movement, in the past few years, to redefine it to refer to a class, rather than a race. This is very much something I'd expect that particular class of people to do, regardless is the color of their skin; and I dare say that I know people of all races who are members of that class, just as I know people of all races who are not. Hell, in some areas I've lived in, most of them are white.

That said, its use in this thread probably *is* racist; typically when someone utters the word, outside of their small group of friends who have already agreed on the refined definition, that's the intent.

Comment: Re:So ... (Score 1) 213

by BronsCon (#47672147) Attached to: How to Maintain Lab Safety While Making Viruses Deadlier
I disagree. What they're doing in that lab is rearranging bit of virus and seeing what happens; analogous to rearranging bits of code and seeing what happens. That is, they want to know, given what already exists, and its propensity for auto-morphology, how worried should we be? It's essentially the same as asking "what's the worst that can happen if the instructions of Hello World are executed out of order?" except that we can't read the code for the virus (well, we can, but we don't understand enough of the biological "instruction set" it runs on to know what any of it means) and, so, we can't just rearrange it in our editor and step through it like we can with Hello World, we have to compile and execute.

That's why Hello World is not a viable replacement for fdisk in this type of research.

Comment: Re:In before (Score 5, Interesting) 147

Actually, they're pretty clear about their terms of use, and there's no restriction on the *amount* of data, so it is, in fact, unlimited. I'm saying this as an affected user; I fully expect to get a call from T-Mobile about my data usage, as I'm uploading >10GB/mo via an automated process, and have been doing so for the past year or so. Honestly, I've been expecting the call for some time, so I'll actually be surprised if I don't get it sometime this year.

That said, the process in question is uploading video to YouTube, so it's just as likely they won't flag it because it's not continuous and it's not P2P.

I do know that AT&T cut my wife's grandfathered unlimited data down to 2GB, with a warning and throttling at that point, while charging her the same price I was paying for 4GB on the same account. That's one of the reasons we're no longer with them. T-Mobile isn't doing that here, and I really have no complaints with how they're handling it; I'm surprised they didn't do it sooner.

Comment: Re:New Design Approach (Score 1) 220

by BronsCon (#47662739) Attached to: Samsung Announces Galaxy Alpha Featuring Metal Frame and Rounded Corners
The BlackBerry Z10 looks much more like an iPhone than anything Samsung has ever made, but I don't hear Apple (or anyone, really) saying a thing about it. Why is that? In fact, the BlackBerry Z30 looks an awful lot like the HTC One M7 (from the front, at least) which, itself, looks a lot like an iPhone (again, from the front).

Not a word about BlackBerry copying Apple, or copying HTC, who copied Apple, or, hell, even HTC copying Apple. In an ironic twist, the upcoming iPhone 6 looks a lot like the HTC One M8 that came out in March, but, again, not a word of that from anyone.

Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.

Working...