Search results

Actually no, legitimate providers will ask permission to use someone else's work - quite a few folks are using modified versions of the TOS/AUP I wrote, with my permission.  Just because you think others steal doesn't mean it's right for you to do so.  Seems you need to work on ethics a bit...

Or he was running an older version and got wacked again.

Not to mention that certain 'providers' will misuse various methods of caching in order to spoof 'good looking results' that you could never actually achieve in production.

A hat tip to you for clarifying, and for not selling client info (probably one of my worst pet peeves).  What made you decide to step away from hosting?

Yup, Andrew gave us the domain back when he couldn't think of any use for it.  Back in the days when we were pretty much floating his company at no cost to him.  That's public knowledge, not some dark secret you think you've discovered. You can try to rant about things you don't understand all...

Oh, I already knew (this guy has a history with Frantech).  That was just a subtle way of bringing the information to light.

Are you Mark Cayetano, the guy that ran Atomic Booter (a 'pay to not get attacked' booter network)?

"Hi, we're selling your data to someone else - but they don't want us to tell you who it is." That just feels.... slimy.

Backward compatibility.  Perl4 didn't have an enable-able strict in this manner.  There are also tons of situations where someone just needs to run a quick bit of perl on commandline (like when I corrected Rallias' horrid regex the other day using perl -ne), where strict is not necessary.

He can't even do simple debugging on his own - of course he's going to rip other people's work for site documentation as well.

Eh, use strict; isn't related to what your script does - it's something you should be using regardless of what you write.

No use strict;?

Actually - yes.  Several of them used non-CC locations in an attempt to disguise their ownership - and one child in particular made a HUGE fuss over the fact that he was using non-CC locations.  Cue to a couple months later, when he plays the "look at me pay attention to me" card with the fake...

A mute button would be nice.

That, and you have to keep in mind there's more than one country in play.  He's using OVH Canada, right?  So the criteria for both countries has to be met for it to be legit.  Doesn't matter if he can form contracts in the UK if OVH in Canada cannot do so for minors. The real answer to this...

Try reading for content.  I just told you that no, they wouldn't.  I know this because we've been in that situation before, and I have firsthand knowledge of how the process works for setups like ours. I've also seen what happens to setups like yours - minors that don't own the gear.  But, by...

Actually, yes, I do.  Francisco owns the equipment, which means the warrant for seizure must come to us.  Because we're not skids, and we comply with federal court orders, if we're legally bound to turn over the data we can do so without taking the node offline, or even removing physical drives...

Why don't you answer some of the more uncomfortable questions you've been avoiding - such as: And that's not even touching on the other problems a child running a 'business' presents.

I'm rarely unkind.  What I am is honest - and if honesty is bothering you, perhaps you should stop to consider why commentary on something you do upsets you.  Here's a hint: the problem lies with you. As an interesting bit of information - as of this writing, I have 1666 posts, and 1784...