61–70 of 79 posts
Wow...this is like hearing that Github plans to quit Dreamweaver because it was feuding with Adobe.
I just want to make it clear that none of us at GitHub have any plans of dropping our usage of Dreamweaver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> probably never have a problem https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=godaddy... http://css-tricks.com/15377-this-sites-domain-is-stolen/ etc.
That had nothing to do with GoDaddy. GoDaddy was not the original registrar of all the domains that were stolen, and the thefts were possible due to a Gmail issue, not anything GoDaddy did.
Did StackOverflow actually comment on when the switch would occur? I am sure they will post about it but I see a bunch of large companies saying "we will switch". I don't see a lot of companies saying "we have switched". Proof or it didn't happen.
Did StackOverflow actually comment on when the switch would occur? I am sure they will post about it but I see a bunch of large companies saying "we will switch". I don't see a lot of companies saying "we have switched". Proof or it didn't happen.
Ping whois over and over if you need proof... seems like an odd thing to assume they'd lie about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only time American Express has called me has been twice on my Gandi payment. Makes you wonder about their fraud algorithms. Surely Amex can see I make the same payment every year, or maybe that is the mark of a patient and not greedy fraud. FWIW I haven't had any troubles in the last few years.
My bank is brutal about blocking my card on suspicion of fraud. Only in 11 years, there's never been a fraudulent transaction on that card. While it very often happens when I try to place an order with companies I order from regularly, what seems to trigger them is not the transaction itself, but that it occurs near in time to another transaction, especially if I've ordered an online service from a company outside th…
In both cases I made a small purchase at a fast food restaurant, followed immediately by a large purchase. This was one of their triggers, which makes sense. Thief tests card, then immediately tries to max it out.
It nearly caused me a huge problem the first time since I was purchasing an engagement ring and they called my now fiancee regarding the transaction. Thankfully they didn't give any details but it still meant I had to lie about it all about which I was not pleased.
Perhaps off-topic, but after reading GoDaddy's letter, I am surprised that our discussions against SOPA don't focus on the root -- the fact that the legislation is presented in an incredibly misleading and vague manner. At face value, its purpose is to stop the foreign counterfeit drug/goods sellers -- you know, the same guys who spam us with "enlarge your..." and such offers. The same guys who pollute Google search…
> Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes. What reasonable person would oppose this? I would. Not every nuisance should be outlawed, most nuisances probably shouldn't. Legislation always bears a cost, and, for instance, in this case the cost outweighs the benefits by a wide margin. As is often the case.
Wow... SO is still with GoDaddy? GoDaddy's position on SOPA has been clear since October; what took them so long?
Where has this been made clear? They may have written their statements in October, but waited till today to publish it: http://support.godaddy.com/godaddy/go-daddys-position-on-sop... It's another sleazy move by GoDaddy (that wreaks of corruption) to wait till nearly the eve of the SOPA vote before making their stance and rationale public.
Wow... SO is still with GoDaddy? GoDaddy's position on SOPA has been clear since October; what took them so long?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111029/07003216560/go-dad...
http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2011/10/in-case-you-missed...
Anybody could have found these by doing a Google search.
Perhaps off-topic, but after reading GoDaddy's letter, I am surprised that our discussions against SOPA don't focus on the root -- the fact that the legislation is presented in an incredibly misleading and vague manner. At face value, its purpose is to stop the foreign counterfeit drug/goods sellers -- you know, the same guys who spam us with "enlarge your..." and such offers. The same guys who pollute Google search…
> Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes. What reasonable person would oppose this? I would. Not every nuisance should be outlawed, most nuisances probably shouldn't. Legislation always bears a cost, and, for instance, in this case the cost outweighs the benefits by a wide margin. As is often the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now suppose someone had asked you: "do you want legislation against these foreign illegal drug sellers?" Surely you'd say yes. Heck, I'd say yes. Let me stop you there. I'd say no, because I feel that in many matters, especially those concerning the Internet, legislation is about as effective as politely asking the rain not to drip through your leaky roof.
Even for the sake of argument assuming legislation is the right answer here: The problem with SOPA is not so much what can be done to stop "bad guys", but how it can be done, namely without a court order, and only based on "reasonable belief". It is massively chilling by virtue of causing large liabilities if someone don't act, even if/when they don't or even can't know for sure if the claim made is true, while grant…