4 ms·

Stocks function as a medium of exchange for the vast majority of cases. Squatting on a dollar to make interest isn't abusing the dollar. Web domains function

Stocks function as a medium of exchange for the vast majority of cases. Squatting on a dollar to make interest isn't abusing the dollar. Web domains function in a thousand different ways, and in some cases a medium of exchange metaphor may work (e.g. people want the domain to make more money). In this case, it's more akin to hoarding hand sanitizer and toilet paper until people have to pay scalper's rates out of fear of repercussion. The only reason this is a story is because of the security risks it presents, and holding that risk hostage is pretty obviously unsociable behavior (even if it is Microsoft's dime).

arcticbull 7y ago
> The only reason this is a story is because of the security risks it presents, and holding that risk hostage is pretty obviously unsociable behavior (even if it is Microsoft's dime). Not really, right, Microsoft could go back and fix this another way. They could release patches to all the major OS versions that had this bug, and push their customers to upgrade or face security issues at their own peril. I'd have to imagine all the customers with this problem have long-term support contracts, and if they don't, well, I don't know what to tell you. What he's providing Microsoft is a dramatically cheaper, easier way out of a problem they made for themselves with poor/buggy domain resolution. He didn't create the bug. He's selling them a patch that costs a fraction of a fraction of what they'd have to pay to get themselves out of their own mess. Think of it more as someone who acquired a tow truck as an inheritance, and sees an armored car in the ditch. The armored car could get themselves out, they could remove their gold bricks one piece at a time, then pull the car out and load the bricks back on. Or, they could give a brick to this guy and call it a day. He didn't push them in, he's offering them a much more cost effective way out. You may not like it, but this is capitalism.

arcticbull 7y ago

> The only reason this is a story is because of the security risks it presents, and holding that risk hostage is pretty obviously unsociable behavior (even if it is Microsoft's dime). Not really, right, Microsoft could go back and fix this another way. They could release patches to all the major OS versions that had this bug, and push their customers to upgrade or face security issues at their own peril. I'd have to imagine all the customers with this problem have long-term support contracts, and if they don't, well, I don't know what to tell you. What he's providing Microsoft is a dramatically cheaper, easier way out of a problem they made for themselves with poor/buggy domain resolution. He didn't create the bug. He's selling them a patch that costs a fraction of a fraction of what they'd have to pay to get themselves out of their own mess. Think of it more as someone who acquired a tow truck as an inheritance, and sees an armored car in the ditch. The armored car could get themselves out, they could remove their gold bricks one piece at a time, then pull the car out and load the bricks back on. Or, they could give a brick to this guy and call it a day. He didn't push them in, he's offering them a much more cost effective way out. You may not like it, but this is capitalism.