This Wired article just blows me away. An MBA student wanted to start a new online business using the domain races.com, and he paid thousands of dollars to buy it from its owner. The owner filled out the transfer information, and then Network Solutions screwed up the transfer twice, listing the domain as available in the database. The first time the student pointed out their mistake and they corrected it; the second time NSI couldn't back the purchase out because a third-party registrar made the sale.
So NSI's gonna get ripped a new one for the screw-up, right? Not according to the article, which points out that the courts haven't yet held NSI responsible for a mistake like this. I'm just shaking my head over this one; the fact that they failed to correct the problem after one mistake just screams negligence to me. Does a blanket "it's not our fault if something goes wrong" statement enable NSI to get away with something like this? Apparently so, but if anybody out there is into the whole legal thing and would like to comment, I'd certainly be interested.
|Silverstone's Strider Titanium PSUs are ready for a high-power future||8|
|VR180 video bridges the gap between YouTube and VR||0|
|Steam 2017 Summer Sale, part deux||13|
|Deals of the week: Z270 mobos, spinning storage, and more||3|
|G.Skill readies up for X299 with quad-channel DDR4 at 4200 MT/s||15|
|Asus' VivoBook S510 is an ultrabook for the budget crowd||14|
|Windows Insider Build 16226 gives users a look at GPU utilization||22|
|Steam's 2017 Summer Sale is downright hot||46|
|Asus XG-C100C NIC breaks the gigabit barrier||34|