Guy "buys" google.com for $12
-
Agreed, nothing compared to when Microsoft forgot to renew one of their hotmail domains and had to buy it back from some good Samaritan.
-
So, basically, I am right, as he did get something for his $12, even though it wasn't a domain
Only because modern media outlets will spin a controversial story out of anything
An untrained mind could think that you mean he bought something only because media wanted to make a controversial story - in other words, he wouldn't buy anything if media didn't want to make a controversial story. But I know you were just imprecise and, unlike some other individual, I'm supposed to actually listen to my shoulder aliens instead of reading your post.
-
-
However, since it's Google that owns Google.com, and it was their own domain service that "sold" it, maybe he could take them to court and argue that the purchase should be binding?
Would probably fail because he himself never honestly believed he would become the owner of google.com.
-
I remember reading about a court case where some office drone successfully convinced the judge that he doesn't know what a photocopier is.
-
An
untrainedidiotic mind could think that you mean he bought something only because media wanted to make a controversial story - in other words, he wouldn't buy anything if media didn't want to make a controversial story.
-
I think the important part is that he felt like he owned it. In this day and age, that is all that matters. :-P
-
If I came to a store, bought toothbrush, paid two bucks, and before I even leave the counter, the cashier have those two dollars back and demanded the toothbrush back too, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be obliged by law to give it back, would I?
This is more like finding a stray barcode stuck to the wall, having the cashier come over and scan it, and claiming you'd just bought the store.
-
The receipt contains the name of thing you've bought. If the name was "WALMART STORE", then I would think I have bought it. And the receipt Sanmay Ved has got contains google.com domain.
-
It just goes to show, even Google can cock things up.
Wow, you mean the makers of Buzz and Wave can make mistakes? You mean the company that canceled the beloved Google Reader isn't perfect?
Say it ain't so!
Goddamned it's like 7:25 AM and this thread has a krajillion posts in it. I ain't read all this shit. Fuck all y'all.
-
Goddamned it's like 7:25 AM and this thread has a krajillion posts in it. I ain't read all this shit. Fuck all y'all.
It's 3:27 PM here, what's your weather like?
-
Goddamned it's like 7:25 AM and this thread has a krajillion posts in it. I ain't read all this shit. Fuck all y'all.
-
The receipt contains the name of thing you've bought. If the name was "WALMART STORE", then I would think I have bought it. And the receipt Sanmay Ved has got contains google.com domain.
It doesn't really matter what the receipt says you bought if the seller wasn't authorised to sell it. That is what happened in this case.
That delves into a more tricky question: if you design an automated system which operates under your authorisation, and unknowingly create a bug which does something bad, did you authorise the bad thing directly, or do bugs get a certain degree of leeway? You'd probably be held partly responsible for it, but only to the extent of fixing whatever problems it caused; in this case, it was fixed by reversing the transaction and notifying the buyer that the sale couldn't be completed.
-
It doesn't really matter what the receipt says you bought if the seller wasn't authorised to sell it.
If the seller is the owner of the thing, isn't he automatically authorized to sell it to anybody?
-
That delves into a more tricky question: if you design an automated system which operates under your authorisation, and unknowingly create a bug which does something bad, did you authorise the bad thing directly, or do bugs get a certain degree of leeway?
Self-driving Cars Thread is over there >
-
If the seller is the owner of the thing, isn't he automatically authorized to sell it to anybody?
The owner is Google, but the seller was an automated system that Google built, not Google itself.
An authorised agent of a company malfunctioned and did something it wasn't supposed to be authorised to do. That's not exactly something that's never happened before, and it doesn't mean the company authorised it to do that.
-
If the seller is the owner of the thing, isn't he automatically authorized to sell it to anybody?
No; depends on the terms agreed to when ownership was taken
-
No; depends on the terms agreed to when ownership was taken
Is ownership the correct term? Technically people only lease domains, AFAIK you cannot permanently buy a domain, so do you ever really "own" it?
-
WHO KNOWS! Maybe in another 683421 boring posts we can all straighten it out!
-
An authorised agent of a company malfunctioned and did something it wasn't supposed
to be authorisedto do.
Usually in such cases, the client gets the product and is let free, and then the owner demands compensation from the agent.
-
-
He probably also felt like a women
-
So, I bet Google we're all like derp<x> when they found out they sold their domain to some guy for the price of an expensive latte, eh?
-
the price of an expensive latte
That's a very expensive latte… You can probably get them round here for 10–20% of the cost (not that I'd know; I don't contaminate my ).
-
So how about you stop acting like a colossal moronic bellend and shut the fuck up for once?
Well you didn't come back any less sandy, it seems.
-
What, I'm meant to respond to his continuous idiocy with "How amusing! Please tell me the one about the unicorns!"? Or is it simply I'm not allowed to call out blatant mistakes?
-
I was just sayin'.
-
Yes, you're just saying it's fine for me to suffer heaps of abuse here and laugh it off, but the instant I get even a little sarky, I'm the one toxifying the forum.
-
I said neither of those things.
-
Maybe not today, but you've said plenty in the past to support that. And you're not the only one.
-
I'm just disappointed that you used insults that have already been used in the past. I wish more people would strive for excellence in vitriol.
-
I remember reading about a court case where some office drone successfully convinced the judge that he doesn't know what a photocopier is.
I linked it here on the old forums in April 2014.
@aliceif linked it here in July 2014:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/the-bad-ideas-thread/254/774?u=boomzilla
-
Might be it. The old forum, I mean, because I don't read The Bad Ideas Thread at all.
-
I'm about 800 posts behind. I can't be arsed to catch up on it.
-
Don't worry, in a few discoweeks they will be auto-read for you.
-
QFT!
-
In an update to this story, Google have now rewarded him for his efforts.
@bbcnews said:
Now Mr Ved has been given a cash reward for spotting the error
I wonder how much they gave him...
@bbcnews said:
which he has decided to donate to charity
-
@bbcnews said:
which he has decided to donate to charity
It went to an education charity, and Google doubled the amount; I don't see the
-
If you're a celeb with shitloads of money, then I see why they donate things like this to charity.
If you're "Barry Shitpeas" with a normal day job, then I think it's a bit daft (although it depends on how large the sum of money is). If it was anything more than £100, there's no way that would end up anywhere other than my bank account.
-
I guess, but I'd still be tempted to donate at least some of it to charity, even if I keep the majority of it.
-
The "I've got burned by hot coffee I ordered! I didn't know it's hot!" case wasn't thrown out.
To be fair. She got 2nd degree burns from that.If you're a celeb with shitloads of money, then I see why they donate things like this to charity.
Does anyone know that experiment where people are really generous but when you add anonymity into the mix it all starts to go south. It was one of those weird experiments where the only conclusion you could safely draw was that an observer influences the observed...
-
I've been donating to charities for years, but only amounts that I can afford. I definitely could not afford to give a big chunk of money, such as a bug bounty from Google, to charity.
That being said, I'm not a mean person. I used to donate to the RSPCA for years, but had to cancel it once I got a mortgage. I did get a bit annoyed with them constantly sending me mail, and phoning me for more money. It felt like they spent all the money I donated to them on begging me for more money.
-
successfully
-
Yeah, every media outlet has got that tiny yet incredibly significant detail wrong.
Oh, and you used the wrong meme image; it should have been this one:
There's a thread somewhere in Bot Testing that gave rise to it IIRC.
-
If someone gave me a bunch of money I didn't earn, I'd give it to charity too.
Feels too greasy otherwise.
-
Oh, and you used the wrong meme image; it should have been this one:
Alas, I think I just whooshed.
-
If someone gave me a bunch of money I didn't earn, I'd give it to charity too.
Feels too greasy otherwise.
The "Doctor Jones wants to buy an extension for his house" charity is a worthy cause that's currently accepting donations.
-
If someone gave me a bunch of money I didn't earn, I'd give it to charity too.
Except this guy did earn it. At least according to Google.
-
Well whatever. I'm not telepathic. If I had been just dicking around like this guy, and basically accidentally found that issue, I wouldn't feel like I earned the money.
I'm not him. He can do whatever the fuck he wants.
-
You know who else was just dicking around and accidentally did something? Isaac Newton.