FDSGSG

78 ms·

841.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
>but, devils advocate, maybe it's just there to scare off potential spammers/scammers? Why are you engaging in these bizarre mental gymnastics to defend this? The threat is made in a context strictly unrelated to spammers/
842.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Where exactly does the quoted text mention shady spam operations? It's about DDoS victims, not cybercriminals. >We are NOT a DDoS Mitigation Service. Yes, we have a lot of DDoS mitigation in place. No, this isn’t here so that you ca
843.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
> I can only assume they would only do this for persistent and malicious violation of the rules No, they specifically state this in a context which does not leave room for such an interpretation. >We are NOT a DDoS Mitigation Service.
844.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
You completely misunderstand, this is strictly different from a ban. This is like DDoSing someone after you banned them. The TTL tells DNS resolvers to cache the "localhost" result for 1 year, it's specifically an attempt to
845.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
How could you possibly compare that to > we may also wildcard your DNS to localhost and set the TTL on your zone out to a year This is going way beyond suspending a customer, this is an active attack by EasyDNS.
846.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Judging by their ToS, I wouldn't be so sure that easyDNS has attorneys.
847.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
You approve of maliciously tampering with customer configs to punish them? I get suspending someone, I don't get "we may also wildcard your DNS to localhost and set the TTL on your zone out to a year"
848.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Let me just further highlight this specific part: >we may also wildcard your DNS to localhost and set the TTL on your zone out to a year. You’ve been warned Maliciously tampering with customer DNS configs to DoS them for extended periods
849.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
> we may also wildcard your DNS to localhost and set the TTL on your zone out to a year. You’ve been warned No, this is simply indefensible. There's simply no way you could ever excuse this. Suspending a customer domain is OK, thi
850.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
You think Slack came up with that design? Hah.
851.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Yeah, looks like $1 would've probably been enough fees for this transaction to be confirmed within a reasonable timeframe (less than 10 blocks, ~a few hours).
852.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
They overpaid big time, fees of approximately $33 would've been sufficient for the transaction to confirm just as fast.
853.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
It appears they overpaid by a factor of 20 or so. Anything beyond the first 0.003267426 (33 usd) or so was just charity.
854.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... In many of your comments you discuss your girl friend. Should we assume that you're talking about an underage girl? If you're going to e
855.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
What problems would decentralization solve here?
856.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
I'm not saying they will, just saying they can . There's no magic coating on those cards making them particularly resistant to discoloration. Odds are the Apple card would be exactly like your other cards.
857.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
> It literally went to market with everyone knowing you can't put it where you normally put such cards But you totally can. Apple just points out that the Apple card, like literally any other card can get scratched or discolored.
858.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Do you work for Google? How do you know that using an Apple card would result in you getting banned for the use of a virtual card? E: Yes, I read the article.
859.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
"Poorly designed" may be subjective, but do you happen have any evidence to support your claim that Apple Card "scratches and stains too easily"?
860.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Why would not getting an Apple card keep Google from banning you?
861.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
This has nothing to do with the Apple Card. Google loves suspending Ads accounts for doing any changes to their profiles. I've had to go through this BS at least 5 times. Odds are this guy would've been banned no matter which card
862.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Is there any demand for plastic cards beyond this one guy whose phone case doesn't work with them?
863.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
>being forced to show off a shiny but pathetically impossible to maintain product because it would simply break if handled normally is really stretching it to the limits. What product are you referring to?
864.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
This story is really sketchy, how did they ever confirm that AI was involved unless they caught the perpetrator?
865.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Do you have any evidence of phone companies elsewhere doing this?
866.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
You only need to claim a number if you want to receive calls, you can make calls from any number you'd like. FWIW I see lots of European countries that require you to provide an address, not many that actually require verification.
867.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
I usually have someone driving me, but would strongly prefer to control the music. With Carplay, if I connect my phone in order to control the music I'll lose navigation if I use my phone for anything at all. Best solution I've fo
868.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Feels good to read and hence gets upvoted, but it's just not true. US has dished out far more severe punishments for this stuff than the Bundesnetzagentur could https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/24-defendants-sen
869.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
Crazy how this gets downvoted. European exceptionalism is exactly what this is. No-one here has identified any specific effective methods through which Germany or any other European country combats these calls, it's because they can
870.
by FDSGSG 7y ago
How could you possibly prove that he doesn't own those bitcoins? You can prove control, but not lack of ownership unless you just burn the coins.

More ›