No, that's not correct.
Obviously, being the one that this happens to sucks big time. There is a huge difference, however, between "50,000 people a year cannot fly on reserved tickets" and "500 people a year cannot fly on reserved tickets".
The point I'm making is that this isn't a one sided move by the airliners. This has direct impact on you. If they cannot overbook by 10%, then your tickets will be 10% more expensive.
The anecdotal evidence here is that this happens at a higher frequency than I was aware (then again, all such evidence came for ACs). Let's assume that this is right, and I'm wrong. It's easy enough to solve. Just sue the #@%!)@# out of the bastards. The formula they use takes the expected cost of being wrong into account. If the cost of being wrong goes up, the airlines will organically overbook by less, and you got your wish.
I'll re-iterate: It sucks to not be able to make the game because of overbooking, but it also sucks to not be able to make the game because of bad weather, strikes, mechanical failures or bad traffic to the airport. If each of those, individually, are more likely than missing a game because of overbooking, then the "sucks" part is somewhat irrelevant.
I get it that this is a particularly infuriating reason to miss the game, as it was done on purpose. Still, the alternative cost is to pay more for tickets.
That is pure misinformation. What does happen is that 50,000 passengers a year get an offer to fly at a later flight for compensation, and they accept that offer!
The number of people who don't fly on a flight for which they have a confirmed ticket without their consent is near zero.
What's the difference between this "attack" and inserting a live CD?
You are confusing two things. One is "is it a good reason to vote for Trump if you want X done?". The second is "Why do people vote for Trump?".
Trump gets people's vote for a change that is needed. That Trump will not bring that change about is besides the point.
They should keep their mouth shut or else what? The bad guys will start exploiting it?
Read the summary. The bad guys are already exploiting it.
To make matters worse, Google says it is aware that this critical Windows vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild.
How does that make matters worse? Exploit being used in the wild is the standard reason to expedite public disclosure. If the bad guys already know about the bug, there is no sense in keeping the legitimate users in the dark.
Scott Adams is not an authority. He did say it. It's true (I read it as well). So what?
Attacking the source on unrelated charges is a sign of believing the charges (not of guilt, because the people doing the attacking are not the people in a position to know). Attacking the source for being unreliable, on the other hand, is completely legitimate.
Saying "the accuser has been known to repeatedly lie and manufacture evidence in the past" is on the point and relevant.
Akamai cached sites don't move between IPs. They are hosted on all of them. Anycast is used to direct your request to the DNS server nearest you, which then goes on to direct your actual HTTP request to the server nearest you. If the attacking computers are geographically located in a certain area, that area will suffer gravely, but other areas won't be affected at all.
As such, ANY Akamai hosted site is DDoS protected by nature. A few years ago, an iOS update was slugish to arrive. Afterwards, we were told that there were considerable slowdowns to web sites not hosted by Akamai. In other words, it was not that the Akamai network couldn't handle the load of many people downloading the update at once. The Internet couldn't handle that load.
There might be something technical I'm not aware of, but as far as I know, the DDoS protection product is a marketing thing, not a technical thing. You are, essentially, buying insurance against having to pay Akamai a whole lot of money for the DDoS traffic it served on your behalf. I am not 100% certain, but I do not think Akamai serve DDoS protected sites and regular CDN hosted sites differently.
Whether it is bad PR or not is not for me to say. I do think that a host provider that gives a pro-bono service has a legitimate claim to say that non-paying customers should not be costing it more than it is willing to give. On the other hand, I also agree that, in this case, the DDoSers won.
Akamai used to publish real time information on how much traffic the entire network was carrying. The page is still there, but it no longer carries that information. I don't know why.
I believe that the reason Akamai kicked him out was because they didn't want to risk their entire network for one client, at least not without him paying considerably more than he does. At the end of the day, there is a limit to what even Akamai's network can take.
Which is another way of saying that the attackers won.
Disclaimer: I've worked for Akamai for a year and a half, up until two years ago, in a technical role. I do not speak for Akamai.
paying up to one million United miles
... we can presume Pickren reported as many as 15 severe bugs
No. If each report earns up to 1 million miles, and Pickren got 15 mil, it means he reported at least 15 severe bugs.
To be fair, though, the comment you refer to is not a good comment. It is argumentative, tries very hard to push an agenda, and bears little relevance to the comment it is replying to. Then again, the exact same argument (only swinging to the other side of this argument) can be said about the original comment, and that one got +5 insightful.
"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst