Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Black hole? (Score 1) 277

by LordKronos (#47473791) Attached to: Sony Forgets To Pay For Domain, Hilarity Ensues

Because something that has to be done every year gets done every year, like taxes.

Something that has to be done every 10+ years is a lot more likely to get lost and forgotten.

And yet, here we are...looks to me like it DIDN'T get done.

See, the thing is, like I said I do, you DON'T have to wait 10 years. If you want to make it a policy to bump it up to 10 again EVERY year, then do that. You stay in the habit, but you've still got that huge buffer. Your policies and procedures would have to fail you 10 TIMES IN A ROW for it to even get to this point. It seems pretty likely to me that at SOME point in those 10 years, some sysadmin or manager would come along and say "so who handles domain renewals around here", and everyone would look at each other, and they'd figure it out these domain's have been neglected for 5 years, and then they'd be able to fix the problem before it was a problem.

Comment: Re:Black hole? (Score 3, Informative) 277

by LordKronos (#47472019) Attached to: Sony Forgets To Pay For Domain, Hilarity Ensues

Actually, 10 years is the max registration. And that's exactly what I do. Throwaway domains that I'm experimenting with might only get a year or 2, but once anything becomes important to my business, it gets renewed for 10 years. The same is true for my personal domain. And every couple years I go through and bump it back up to the max. I'd literally have to go 10 years without remembering to renew a domain before one would expire. I can't see why any business would do otherwise.

Comment: Re:So what about those of us who don't have gas st (Score 4, Informative) 204

by LordKronos (#47446119) Attached to: Rocket Scientist Designs "Flare" Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster

Nope:

http://home.howstuffworks.com/...

The clear winner in the energy efficiency battle between gas and electric is gas. It takes about three times as much energy to produce and deliver electricity to your stove. According to the California Energy Commission, a gas stove will cost you less than half as much to operate (provided that you have an electronic ignition--not a pilot light).

Comment: Re:Connotations (Score 1) 127

by LordKronos (#47445951) Attached to: Public To Vote On Names For Exoplanets

No religious connotations. So names like "Jupiter" and "Mars" and "Pluto" are right out. Even names like "Charon" are verboten.

<cough>

Even though, to an athiest, they may seem the same, there is definitely a difference between religion and mythology. As far as I know, Jupiter, Mars, and Pluto (and Charon) have mythological connotations, but not religious. I'm not aware of anyone who still worships or believes in the Roman (or Greek) gods.

Comment: Re:What about range on this smaller car? (Score 1) 247

by LordKronos (#47385343) Attached to: Tesla Aims For $30,000 Price, 2017 Launch For Model E

OK, so even at 5% per year, in the 5 years between the model S and the model E (assuming it comes out in 2017), that's almost a 28% cumulative improvement.

I'm not sure how much more weight a steel vehicle typically is vs an aluminum one. I know the 2014 F-150 weight roughly 5000 lbs, and on the 2015 F-150 the use of aluminum is supposed to knock off about 700 lbs compared to the 2014. So in that case, that's less than a 20% increase in weight by using steel rather than aluminum. On top of that, with all the talk of this new aluminum F-150, it's started a bunch of talk about ways to produce steel panels that are lighter, making them weight competitive with aluminum but at significantly reduced price.

Comment: Re:Disappointing (Score 1) 110

by LordKronos (#47373655) Attached to: FTC Says T-Mobile Made Hundreds of Millions From Bogus SMS Charges

Nope sorry, you aren't comprehending again. You said "no refunds are possible", but yet I got a refund, so it is at least POSSIBLE (and again, I make no claims about other peolpe's experiences, just my own).

And yes, I am a PREPAID customer, not their new month-to-month program. I've been a PREPAID customer since about 2005 (give or take a year), which is long before their current plans existed. I pay $100 (slightly less online, actually) to get 1000 minutes that are good for 1 year. That is their PREPAID program. So YES I understand PERFECTLY.

Comment: Re:Disappointing (Score 1) 110

by LordKronos (#47368435) Attached to: FTC Says T-Mobile Made Hundreds of Millions From Bogus SMS Charges

According to the allegations, pre-paid customers aren't notified at all, the money just disappears from the account and no refunds are possible.

From my other post (to which you already replied and tried to put words into my mouth), I received a refund on my account. I didn't mention it there, but that was a prepaid account. So it clearly is POSSIBLE to get a refund, and they gave me no hassle over the matter.

Comment: Re:T-Mobile's Reponse (Score 2) 110

by LordKronos (#47367915) Attached to: FTC Says T-Mobile Made Hundreds of Millions From Bogus SMS Charges

So your experience is that of the 1 time t-mobile helped a company rip you off, they refunded the charges, therefore the percent of customers who didn't get a refund must be different than accused by the government.

I really can't see how that would follow. Your experience validates half the accusation, and they're not accused of never refunding anybody, only of not refunding a bunch of specific people... who really didn't get refunds.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Did I say any of the stuff you seem to be suggesting I did? No, I only said "my experience with these bogus charges supports t-mobiles claims". That's just me providing my data point. Others in this discussion will do the same. When we have a bunch of them, we can read them all and draw our own conclusions as to whether we believe the accusations are accurate or not.

Comment: Re:T-Mobile's Reponse (Score 4, Informative) 110

I have to say, my experience with these bogus charges supports t-mobiles claims. About 3-4 years back, my wife somehow got signed up for some bogus service that was charging $10 per month. I didn't notice it until the 3rd bill. I called up t-mobile and they refunded the entire amount with no hassle. Furthermore, since my wife never uses any of those subscription services at all, they even offered to put a block on her account so she couldn't be re-subscribed.

That was years ago, and we haven't had any more problems. I had even forgotten all about it, but a few weeks ago I found out that block is still in place. We tried to sign up for a free text message subscription with Target so that we could get a $5 coupon they were offering. Tmobile automatically rejected our signup attempt, indicating that the service is blocked.

That said, I do have to nitpick one thing in t-mobile's statement:

In fact T-Mobile...launched a proactive program to provide full refunds for any customer that feels that they were charged for something they did not want

That sounds more reactive than proactive.

Comment: Re:Cash and checks (Score 1) 117

by LordKronos (#47211473) Attached to: Credit Card Breach At P.F. Chang's

I think the problem with your argument is that you are in a different country (Austrailia) than most of us (US). The laws and processes there appear to be quite different. Here:

1) There is minimal difficulty in disputing charges. Most banks have the process pretty streamlined, so on the rare occasion it happens, it's relatively simple to deal with and causes you no disruption (at least with credit cards...debit cards can be a little more dicey with the potential for bounced payments and stuff, which is why I never used debit and don't suggest it for most people)
2) There is minimal risk in using credit. By law you are only liable for $50, but in practice, I've never seen or heard of a bank which holds you liable for even a penny.
3) There is little to no discount for using cash. Previously, merchants were prohibited from charging extra (either by an extra fee or by raising the price) for credit. They could instead offer a cash discount (ie: lower the price BELOW what was advertised) but very few did. Mostly just gas stations, who would charge up to 10 cents a gallon extra for credit (still worth it to pay credit though, since you can get 5% cash back on gas, thus saving 15-20 cents per gallon). Now the laws have changed to prohibit that restriction, but still pretty much nobody has started charging extra for credit. Merchants want to encourage credit because they believe people spend more with credit, thus they'd loose money by encouraging cash payments. Also, cash is not free. There are also costs with counting it and transporting it. You have to hire an armored truck to take it to the bank, there are more issues with employee theft, and the(probably small) risk of counterfeit money
4) Rewards are a benefit to those that use them. Yes in theory it would possibly be cheaper for everyone to use cash (assuming cost of card processing is more than the cost of cash handling). However, that's not going to happen. Even if I switch to cash, there's no way everyone else is going to do the same. Its sort of like the prisoners dilemma on a massive scale...even if a large number of people agreed to cooperate, there's still enough people to screw it up for everyone else. So all I am doing by not taking advantage of rewards is leaving money on the table. I'm still paying the cost of card processing (since it's built into the regular pricing, not a separate fee) but not getting the benefit of the cash back.

In summary, however things may be over in Australia, over here in the US the current system (ie: the way things are currently setup, not the ideal system that would theoretically materialize if everyone agreed to start using cash ) is setup such that credit cards have huge benefits with pretty much no downsides. The only real downside is for people who can't control their spending and thus would get themselves into trouble using credit cards.

Comment: Re:So what's the problem here? (Score 5, Insightful) 398

by LordKronos (#47178525) Attached to: The Ethics Cloud Over Ballmer's $2 Billion B-Ball Buy

Exactly. I don't get all of the talk about how this is a reward. He could have sold the team at any time of his choosing. The price he got isn't because of his racist remarks. It's because there are so few teams available, they don't often come up for sale, and as teams go, the Clippers is actually a pretty highly ranked team. If anything, forcing him to sell actually is a punishment, even at $2 billion. He bought the team for $12.5m 33 years ago. Now it's worth $2b. That works out to an average annual return of almost 17%. It's virtually impossible to find an investment that gives those sort of returns over the long term. When you actually do have one, you'd want to hold onto it as long as possible (unless you have reason to believe its value is about to tank). Forcing him to sell such a fast growing asset is indeed punishment.

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Working...