mbowcock

Joined 18 years ago

Karma
1,071
Submissions
92
Member since
Nov 3
Matt Bowcock / Software Developer / Massachusetts

matt.bowcock at gmail dot com

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 10 years ago
GE chose to leave Connecticut because of a tax increase on profits made in other states by corporate subsidiaries. They're not the only corporation in Connecticut that's unhappy about the tax. Anti-business or not, it's not exactly a draw for corporations with subsidiaries across the country. The money that Boston threw at them was to keep them from moving to New York.
Comment · 12 years ago
AWS http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/website-hosti...

Costs me about $0.50 a month to host a simple, static site.

Comment · 14 years ago
Earth Class Mail http://www.earthclassmail.com/

I don't know who else saw it, but there was a show called Startup Junkies that profiled this company for 8 episodes. http://www.mojohd.com/mojoseries/startupjunkies/about.jsf

Comment · 14 years ago
My understanding is Kingdoms of Amalur was work in progress at Big Huge Games, 38 Studios acquired them and they modded the game to fit the world of Amalur. Which is supposed to tie into their next game.
Comment · 14 years ago
It seemed you were arguing against using transactions by default because they didn't roll back a call to a web service. I meant to point out that the issue in your case seems less about db transactions and more about the code and error handling.
Comment · 14 years ago
The transaction is internal to the database. It's essentially a list of operations to perform, if something goes wrong it provides a list of things to reverse. If the db transaction fails, then there would need to be some code to handle rolling back operations outside of the database. I don't think db transactions were to fault in your situation.
Comment · 14 years ago
It's not transactions with the .com that's at issue. It's the fact that a company operating a business the government considers illegal is making money in the US and moving it overseas.

It's all about the money. Not .COMs.

Running a gambling site on an .so domain and hosting the servers overseas while profiting in the US will still get you indicted. The government might not have the authority to shut off your internet presence but I'm sure they could turn off finances in the US. And certainly make travel to certain countries an issue.

Comment · 14 years ago
Comment · 14 years ago
The US government has always had dominion over .coms (and .nets). Verisign manages .com's through a contract with the US Department of Commerce. That's where they get there authority.
Comment · 14 years ago
But that is already an issue - whether or not you have a .com domain name. The domain name is just an asset and the government routinely seizes assets when filing criminal charges.
Comment · 14 years ago
This seems to be the same issue as megaupload. A company outside the US, marketing a service that's illegal in the US to US citizens. Money paid for the service is then moved overseas. (I understand there may have been users in other countries, like megaupload)

While not something I necessarily agree with - I don't think this particular move indicates all .COMs are now threatened.

Comment · 14 years ago
I believe all lithium-ion batteries have a low-voltage threshold that once crossed they can not be charged again. It's similar to a fuse - once tripped - there's no* getting around it. This protection is to guard against shorts in the internal circuitry. With the current technology there is no way around it.

* Edit. Missed the 'No'.

Comment · 14 years ago
decvax was DEC unix engineering groups vax on uucp/usenet. I believe it was the first system to move email in realtime. Microsoft must have been linked through this vax.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton