New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Well @Jarland it was only a hypothetical situation.
Here is a real situation. The Lord purchased me a bar-be-que smoker, I had finished smoking one day and instead of cleaning it out like I usually do, I set it on the side of my house.
When I came out looking for it, I realized that it was stolen. Was I to blame, since I left it out on the side of my house?
While it was definitely something that I wanted to do. Have it cleaned out and put in storage. By putting it on the side of the house it was not evil. But it was evil for someone to steal it.
Was it evil for someone to purchase a lifetime vps? I do not think that it was... God bless you!
If you knew that someone was going to steal from you and you left something outside to be robbed while your back was turned, then both you and the thief share blame.
The difference in the premise here is that you did not encourage the thief's behavior in a direct way. You could argue indirect, but then it becomes too muddy and a person could lean toward either view. Only when seeing a thief in front of you, knowing the inevitable conclusion, and then enabling them with a direct action could that be equivalent.
When people saw an offer that they knew could not be provided and then purchased it, they directly enabled the company financially, and they entered themselves into the event where they would become the victim. They were not Cloudatcost members simply because they turned their backs for a moment and suddenly they were signed up. If they were, another criminal exists that stole their payment information.
I am actually proposing that it was, unless they can demonstrate that they truly believed it was possible for the company to provide. I do not believe this is probable given the level of intelligence required to make use of the product, but I do acknowledge that there are likely outliers who were not intelligent enough to use the product or to determine it's sustainability. I'm not going to assume someone to be in that category though, I'll welcome them to demonstrate it to me.
@Jarland then please explain what is an ideal victim....
@Jarland you are a smart and intelligent guy but not everyone is as smart as you. I remember chatting in the "Cyberwings" room and it was some people "Yelling" and "Screaming" scam. They broke it down with cost analysis and everything. I heard it was impossible for this guy to have these deals and re-up them as soon as he did or simply by requesting via the forum.
At the time, I assumed that the people were haters my website was up and I was happy. Was I an ideal victim or should I have known better?
How could have I known better?
Very basic understandings of economics and math. Not college level. Recurring cost to maintain service + selling for a small one time fee = unsustainable. If you have a computer at home you're already aware that it takes power and that internet access isn't free, and these realities are not bent by server providers.
Or an even more basic model.
You understand that servers don't self-power themselves, just like people, just eat once, see how long you last before you need to eat again.
Still in that elitist state of mind are you?
haha, I guess if recognizing that you need to consume food in order to continue to function is elitist.... then yes.
Well, if you're out of food, why not eat cake instead?
It's just cleaning up resources from garbage.
So what is an ideal victim?
I was reading this vice article that is trying to persuade that all victims should be ideal.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/all-victims-should-be-ideal-victims
I don't think I understand the term "ideal" in this context. To me the ideal victim is no victim. I'm just using dictionary definition of ideal though, where it sounds like you may have a more specific context in mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
An ideal victim is one who is afforded the status of victimhood due to unavoidable circumstances that put the individual at a disadvantage to their attacker. One can apply this theory to any crime including and especially sexual assault. Nils Christie, a Norwegian criminology professor, has been theorizing about the concept of the ideal victim since the 1980s. In his research he gives two examples, one of an old woman who is attacked on her way home from visiting her family and the other of a man who is attacked at a bar by someone he knew. He describes the old woman as an ideal victim because she could not avoid being in the location that she was, she did not know her attacker, and she could not fight off her attacker. The man, however, could have avoided being at a bar, knew his attacker, and should have been able to fight off his attacker, being younger and a man.[33]
When applying the ideal victim theory to sexual assault victims, often judicial proceedings define an ideal victim as one who resists her attacker and exercises caution in risky situations despite law reforms to extinguish these fallacious requirements.[34] When victims are not ideal they are at risk for being blamed for their attack because they are not considered real victims of rape. Because they do not fit the criteria being laid out in the rape law, they cannot be considered real victims and thereby their attacker will not be prosecuted.[35]
A victim who is not considered an ideal or real victim is one who leads a “high risk” lifestyle, partaking in drugs or alcohol, or is perceived as promiscuous. A victim who intimately knows her attacker is also not considered an ideal victim. Examples of a sexual assault victim who is not ideal is a prostitute because they lead a high risk lifestyle. The perception is that these behaviors discount the credibility of a sexual assault victim’s claim or that the behaviors and associations create the mistaken assumption of consent. Some of or all of the blame of the assault is then placed on these victims, and so they are not worthy of having their case presented in court. These perceptions persist in court rulings despite a shift in laws favoring affirmative consent- meaning that the participants in a sexual activity give a verbal affirmation rather than one participant who doesn’t answer negatively nor does he or she answer positively. In other words, affirmative consent is yes means yes and no means no.[36]
In addition to an ideal victim, there must be an ideal perpetrator for a crime to be considered ideal. The ideal attacker does not know their victim and is a completely unrelatable figure- one who is considered sub-human, an individual lacking morals. An attacker that knows their victim is not considered an ideal attacker, nor is someone who seems morally ordinary.[33] Cases of intimate partner violence are not considered ideal because the victim knows their attacker. Husbands and wives are not ideal victims or perpetrators because they are intimately familiar with each other.[36]
I'll follow up in the "cest pit" thread because I'm about to get way off topic
So I have quite a lot of resources from C@C, and have quite some years with them. The one time fee server was a great tool for me to learn linux and to play around with self-hosting, with the hiccups in services they had it also made me learn how to trouble shoot and continue practicing my skills. Early I knew what I was getting into with the unsustainable service, I was quite curious in how they plan to manage it. They come from a parent company, fibernetics, with an existing portfolio of companies (freephoneline, fongo) that strive for the lifetime service with one time payments. They tried expanding from voip to vps hosting with the same mindset. With the existing partner infrastructure and high supply of cheap server hardware, they thought they were very capable of doing so. Starting out they were a great service to begin with, all the reviews were bad from reviewers but it wasn't crippling that people called it a scam. They had made the switch to ssd when they realized that hhd weren't capable of having so much vm's on a single box, they were trying to improve their infrastructure with the architects they had. They implemented variable provisioning with cloudPro, their production ready level of service they were going to charge monthly on. With the existing customers (which have probably begged), they allowed anyone who wanted to switch move over to this new system, allowing to recycle your fixed vps into a resource pool you can pick from. This ended up being a feature frenzy as everyone realized that you can buy as much resources you like and make mega servers. Somewhere along a bit later they fired most of their architects most likely do to budget revenue. Eventually the last feature they put up for the vps hosting directly was gigabit connection. They started adding the storage, and web hosting projects to have more income while they control the backend so they can have more control on usage of the servers. As they struggle to get more funding for the burden they realized they were too far in the bad rep they had and needed more revenue to operate, the year of 2016 was all 80-90% sales happening every week, the worst around black friday, making the service hit an all time low. My windows servers, 2 of which I had and stay up the longest, became untouchable from the outside world due to the congestion of so many people on and after black friday, all the way until March when the network issues were resolved. The service throughout was fairly ok for non-critical use, the only problem that encountered was a disk hiccup causing your server to enter into read-only mode to save itself from data loss (it actually does save your data because if you tried it with it off you will lose your data). An earlier point in time, I had read a conversation with a neighbor tenant when someone was asking if they are going to stay afloat, he had said that the team was bringing in hardware at the time and their setup was legitimate and his guess was that their intention was to stay by the look of things. Fastforward today, we see the company trying to stay afloat once again, this time with its tail in between its leg with all furs missing. Would I be mad? not really, as much as the subreddit is mad for the promise of life time servers they paid $7.5 (no really they are going for a law suit for that amount angry), I had my times worth and I really hope that the $9/year fee weeds out the worst of the cheap people (ie. the people complaining about $7.5 promise) and have a service that is working again and is able to improve without adding congestion.
My current review of the post apocalypse wipe is that the service is much more responsive and better, I can now provision servers within minutes and they all respond much better as if it before 2016. My windows 10 boxes are up and somehow didn't get hit with wannacry, they are updating and having no problems. Of course I/O is slow but latency is slow but consistent. My debian servers are fine and have no hiccups so far. I will use this chance to learn ansible and be able to automate through C@C failures.
@MadSprite - you got quite some info about this company. Are you sure you don't work for them?
I am amazed by the level of details. And to know that this thread is still alive.
You know what's funny? We are all in this together.
I did not buy a Ferrari with a $100 price tag.
I bought a $35 "lifetime VPS" simply because it was a price for basically the smallest functional VPS there is (128 meg RAM. come on, that's bordering on useless for almost everything. but it's enough for what I cared for) - I wouldn't have paid $35 for something beefy thinking it was sticking around forever. I only bought it thinking it was reasonable for lifetime. They should be able to persist 128meg VPSes for $35 for a long time with hardware prices where they're at.
I'm not a "victim" - I'm pointing out a company that did NOT go out of business like a force majeure event - this is just a business that sold something and later changed it - I've bought VPSes from companies that disappear and I just say "aw shucks" and move on. But for a company to continue to be in business and simply just push out people who initially helped them get an influx of funds - legal or not, silly or not, sustainable or not, is just shady and unprofessional shit. I don't think anyone here can disagree with that. I didn't have any idea this VPS would stick around forever, it's actually insulting that they stuck around and just pretend that didn't happen.
I'm simply pointing out some bullshit. Everyone here should be appreciative to hear, because there is absolutely no reason they won't pull the same kind of shit on monthly plans at some point. They're obviously creative on how they decide to mess with existing customers. Very weird to get so much hatred and keyboard warrior shit when I'm a customer reporting to other customers "hey, these guys are pulling some shit" - especially since the quality was abysmal for so long too.
(They might as well rename to trumpVPS.com)
No lol, I just like watching shit shows, and most of the evidence is on the subreddit, which is only active when complaints happens. And they are in a city not too many away from me so I did a little snooping on the internet to see if they were legit about their stance or not.
Reminds me of what I basically said in the other thread. LET members would largely prefer to jump on a sinking ship and watch it sink than either of these:
Most really just want a front row seat to watch the ship sink.
The unsustainable product was removed from being an option a long time ago. It was a limited time offer. So no, it wasn't part of their long term business model. There is this term "grandfathering" that exists...
It's lifetime VPS. Will live until your account being deleted. Sounds legit. /s
The account is not for life, but the servers are for life, because servers have actual life in them, while accounts do not have any life. It's like how our body holds our soul; our soul lives forever, but the body is sustained by food. In this case accounts do not need food, they need money, to keep on holding the forever living servers and networks.
Here are some examples: