Slashdot Mirror
George W. Bush buys anti-Bush names
Quite a number of people have written over the last few days, alerting us to the fact that it appears that presidential candidate George W. Bush, has bought up over 200 Internet Domain Names. The article on Zdnet says that people wanted to put a website up at www.bushsucks.com, but Bush bought that, and more such as bushsucks.net, bushsucks.org, and even bushblows.com Huh-I guess it's a way of having a clue. Sort of.
Free speech is the secondary property of domain names, primarily they are private property. First in first served (minus trademarks).
Well, he recently called Kosovars "Kosovoians", and Greeks "Greecians".
Not to mention such obvious ones as georgebushisdumb.com (or is that too long?).
When you posted you also got rid of your moderation work for this story, so all you had to do was post something - anything at all. Don't tell us who you are though. Thats against the rules or something.
Doesn't he realize that this will probably insite more people to come up anti-bush sites? Especially considering that this will probably irk tech savvy net people more than anyone.
He doesn't want to stop free speech, he wants to make it harder for free speech.
Makes perfect sense.
Except of course, Bush himself is most likely clueless about domain names and it was one of his campain team who though of the idea...
I don't think his point was that bush shouldn't be aloud to buy them, it was to point out how it makes bush look in terms of free speech.
IIRC, Bob Dole had a problem with a bogus web site during the last election. Something like bobdole.com took you to a site that featured Clinton. So, at least Bush is taking a proactive approach to the internet and the 2000 election. I wonder if Mr. "Internet" Gore is going to do the same?:)
On a similar note, what someone could do was put up an anti-Bush (or anyone else for that matter) web site; I like the eatme example posted earlier. Make sure the metatags contain stuff like Bush, 2000, president, US, election, etc... Then wait until the search engines find your site.
We've had some discussion here about trademarks in metatags. I believe that this won't apply to the above example.
I wonder if you could register HeilBuchanan.com?
I don't go to those kind of sites but I don't see it as being worth spending the money for when people can just change the name, I mean that clinton site could be named anything and it would not have made it any easier or harder for me to find.
I feel this just reflects GWBs weird nature, the man does not have his fathers experience.
Clinton also got a lot of attention during the impeachment, was it good attention, would it help him get elected again. Absolutely not, what kind of man likes the attention to be about "you can't disagree with me" type attitude.
The sucks.com sites are opinion. If they can campaign/sell/express their opinion, why can't someone express their opinions of that person as well?
This is actually a smart move by Bush. And there's nothing anti-free speech about it. Domain names are not free speech. You pay for them and in return, no one else gets to use that domain. Oh my God, someone's using the system the way it's designed to work! Somebody do something! Hey! I wanna use 'slashdot,org' too. What?! I can't register it? Rob Malda must be anti-free speech. Yah right.
Considering that the candidates are shoo-ins, we are either going to be Gored or Bushwacked.
Whaddaya know, both are available under org.
Somebody with a sense of humor whose tax returns are up to date needs to run right out and get these.
They could be a lot of fun.
..that they didn't think to register the domain names first. Pure and simple. Say 'hi' to the green eyed monster for me will ya?
>But how do you deal with trademarks from different industries? What if a software
:)
>company has a trademark X and a clothing brand also has the same trademark?
>Who should be entitled to the domain name?
This is why we need unlimited TLDs. So apple.computer and apple.records and apple.farms can all coexist. Oh yeah, TLDs by themselves, cannot be allowed to be registered to anyone. Domain name registrants must still register domains of the form x.y with two parts. This prevents squatting at the TLD level because no one ownd a TLD. The implementation of this for bind is left as an exercise for the reader.
Apply the same transformation to www.intel.com,
switching the two letters before the last one,
you get a frame that appears to be from a sexual titllation purveyment provider. AMaybe they could
get more business from typos than otherwise.
Count your change.
Rob just volunteers the top ov every page served up to the banner spam sites right?
/. is bastardizing the intent of .org. Everyone else does it too. No big deal.
Just admit it,
Kind of funny, you don't know me, you don't know even if I would register a web site name that was against bush. You can go ahead and redirect the attention, make lame assumptions, but if it doesn't make sense then you look stupid. In this case what you say doesn't make sense, since I have not registered a site. Now it would be stupid of me to assume that you are only saying this because you are pro-bush, but I am not stupid, so I won't make lame assumptions. But any way it was funny.
What you didn't read the original poster? He actually was refering to how bush looks in terms of free speech, not that bush should not be aloud to buy sites.
Since when does stuff like this make someone briliant? What when microsoft buys or destroys other companys is that briliant? When a criminal shoots someone in the head so they won't call the police, is that briliant? When atheletes cheat in the olympics and get away with it, are they briliant as well? When someone cheats on a math test and does not get caught, are they also briliant? Are any of these considered brilliant, would you ever say to someone that they are, and not be afraid that someone thinks you have problems?
I don't know, it depends on how the media accepts it, and whether the people who would have taken the bushsucks web sites, will now have to promote their web sites even more since the web site name would be less obvious.
Its just like saying "you can say anything you want, but you can't say it out loud".
This is actually a smart move by Bush.
Depends on your perception of smart, and it still depends on whether it even works or works against him.
And there's nothing anti-free speech about it. Domain names are not free speech. You pay for them and in return, no one else gets to use that domain.
Gee in your assumption "free speech" would not be "free speech" since their are things called copyrights, patents, trademarks. Free speech is not definable in that sense. Texas used to or still does have a law that allows you to shoot people on your property, so if I drag you on my property I can shoot you. But does that sound right, it is my property, if you are on my property you are in my hands, does that sound right?
Oh my God, someone's using the system the way it's designed to work! Somebody do something! Hey!
In your logic, the system was made to take domain names away from people, is the same as saying the law was made for laywers to get around it, and taxes were made so that rich people can find ways of getting around it, or that laws were made so that people do not shoot/kill people for free, so that people can be shot but they have to pay the government/family for shooting their citizen/relative.
I wanna use 'slashdot,org' too. What?! I can't register it? Rob Malda must be anti-free speech. Yah right.
I want to shoot you. What?! I can't shoot you? You must be against the republic then.
The fact that politicians have been struggling with domain name control, suggests that they are restricted by many things or want to be restricted. I forgot who but they wanted to get rid of profanity from domain names, they even wanted to control web content, but I guess bush is letting out the message that money is the best way to control the internet.
-----------------------
Any way, lets look at it this way, if GB was just an average citizen it would not be a big deal, but he is a politicians. When a politician does something it makes them look worst then a normal person doing it. When he did this, he practicly made a statement that he does not want people to have oposing views, or to point out his flaws, even though some people consider this a flop (because they can just use another domain name), while others thinks this will work (brilliant/good move).
This doesn't mean that we are completely locked out from using those URL's, just the ones that end with the three most common extensions. (com, org, net) They failed to take into account Country Codes (such as .us or.[whatever country]) The common misconception is that .com, .org, and.net are the only extensions that exist. one could easily make a page under the URL bushblows.ca.us If it resides in California, USA. This also brings up the point that not all URL's have to start with WWW. You could also use http://bushsucks.com (if they haven't thought of this trick already) Get a page with any one of these URL's and it would completely freak out the bush campaign! but, if you really feel like doing something cool, crack the bush campaign web server and put your bush-bashing page right where everyone can see...
This is the kind of market savy person we need running this country. Today he spends $14k for domain names, tomorrow he'll be buying $14 billion worth of widgets from Iran in exchange for hostages.. Brilliant... simply magnificent. ;-)
Yeah, sure, he wants people that thinks he sucks to go to his web site, that makes sense.
Lets see, I think bush sucks sot I type... www.bushsucks.com
"Oh wow, I had no idea bush was so cool and to think I thought he sucked"
Yeah, right. Thats like saying the US NATO and Yugoslavia are not releasing propoganda. All it does is lower the amount of choices people have, but does so in a legal way.
On the contrary, I think this shows a lot about how quick people are to cry wolf over red herring issues when politicians are involved.
I don't support Bush politically or intelectually at ALL but I *FULLY* support his right to buy any domain name he sees fit. You have the same right and you should have used it when you had the chance instead of coming here and claiming it is a hinderance to your "freedom of expression".
It'd be really cool for once if a script kiddie did something constructive and not utterly stupid.
An example of something constructive would be get into bushsucks.com and have it point to the gay and lesbian alliance homepage or other non-american politicians things. Or even an anarchy site or the US Communist Party.
www.bush-sucks.com is still for sale...
:)
Internet domain names are NOT A RIGHT, they are a priveledge obtained by paying a fee. By advocating that he does NOT have the same right to buy these names, it is in fact YOU who is trying to limit freedom of expression.
In short, please go crawl back under the rock you slithered out from.
good joke!
What a waste of money and time... It would have been a good idea if there were only 9 letters in the English language.
He is using them. They point to his web site.
I wouldn't have bothered doing such a thing myself but at least he just bought the names and didn't try and sue anyone or try to have someone closed down.
Steven.
You've heard the expression "lesser of two evils."
Just because one may not like one candidate doesn't mean they like the other. Most of us are disappointed with all the choices.
This is real stupid because.
1) Name space is almost infinite(Factorial 36 atleast~ 4E41).
2) Putting HTML tags such that search engines will pickup a site for key "Bush" is sufficient to get some attention(This is what porno sites do-try "www.playboy.com")
Again I must repeat its the message not the action.
Sure someone who burns a flag is burning a flag, but its the message they conveigh, not the fact they are burning a flag.
Just like you are free to be an ass hole, but its not the being an ass hole that I should focus on, its the reason you are being an ass hole, that is of more importance. Again he is free to buy anything he wants, but its his message.
You need to read more, and thanks for giving me your name, moron.
When someone compares the buying of domain names to various illegal and/or reprehensible acts, are they being brilliant?
Those are just "examples", is it brilliant to assume other wise? Just giving more examples of your idea of "brilliance".
Oh, please. You make it sound like he's banned anti-Bush Websites. He hasn't. Yeah, now the sites are going to be something like bushsucks.somewhere.com, or maybe something a bit more obscure like www.nowhere.org/~fvj2354/bush/ih8bush.html. Big deal.
Its not his actions its his message. And no I did not make it sound like that, but he did take obvious sites, but let me ask you, if it was not a big deal then why did he fork out the money to do it? The only reason I can think of is to send out a message, because that makes his actions less pointless, either that or he is a fool with money (I doubt).
Actually I have seen many logical arguements use the word suck before, especially when people agree with each other. The only time you don't see it used is when their are possibly people present who would find it offensive, but then again why would someone who finds bushsucks.com to be offensive would go there in the first place? The only reason I can think of is if there is valid information there.
He might not even care, or respects that others have oposing views.
my god
people like you DO exist..
jeeezus.. get a life..
...or "what-do-i-do-now-dad.com"
The possibilities of a combinatorial explosion of domain names bankrupting his campaign are somewhat amusing to contemplate.
$ whois george_bush_sux.com
;-)
[rs.internic.net]
No match for "GEORGE_BUSH_SUX.COM".
$ whois george_bush_sucks.com
[rs.internic.net]
No match for "GEORGE_BUSH_SUCKS.COM".
looks like they didn't get 'em all
No kidding those aren't taken: the _ character in a FQDN is non-RFC compliant. Duh!
What more can I say.
I've been saying this a lot lately... Its not how you say it, its what is meant by what is said, bushsucks.com, is exactly that. Sure I could say "bush is not a good canidate for president", but that is not much diffrent from saying "bush sucks".
Also, what makes you think he is not going to be a hypocrit about this of all things? Most of them are hypocrits, and just because he tries to protect his name does not mean he won't piss on others, that would destroy this idea and bring up a good for me not for you, one standard for me one standard for you type of attitude, which it now becomes not just a protection but an offensive.
I don't want you to disagree with me, but I let you because its your choice, and I respect that you may have an oposing view. Just like I might disagree with your nick, but I'm not going to use my money to help take your nick away or if you want a nick and I know you want it, I'm not going to take it away because it bothers me, and then use your nick to say things I want you to say.
Also how do you know that those are the only kind of sites he bought up? There are 200 of them, do you know them, could you list them all and confidently tell me that he only bought the really awful ones.
First, IANAL.
Second, didn't I read about a CA court ruling about initial confusion and web sites right here on \.?
It's obvious someone seeking out 'bushsucks.com' isn't looking for the Official web site of GWBush, or even a Pro-GW site, but actually looking for a Con-GW site.
Anyone think that recent ruling could be made to apply in this case?
This effort to control access to free speech material is nausiating and heavy-handed, imho.
A better name for a son of a bush?
So he registered a bunch of anti-bush domain names, so what? Anybody can register domain names. There are plenty of others if people sit down and think about it for a while.
At least he seems to have a clue about technology, unlike "I created the internet" Gore. Didn't I see something a few weeks back about Bush's web site being on Linux servers?
you think george will buy advertising at this porn site though? [eatbush.com == hotgirls.com]
Although www.bush-sucks.com is also taken,
www.bush_sucks.com isn't. We could play the punctuation game too!
is that one taken? After this whole fiasco, when I think of George W. Bush, I'll think of Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone...
No, slashdot is aprivately held company, "dumbass."
I didn't know there was a difference.
No match for "BUSHKILLSBABIES.COM".
Today, Toronto is a "megacity". It used to be a bunch of small municipal governments were responsible for the sprawl of the Greater Toronto Area, but in an effort to cut costs and government size the Tories rammed through a bill to amalgamate all of these little cities into one big Toronto. A lot of grassroots activists were hugely pissed off, because to them this meant going from a bunch of small, responsible municipal governments to one ineffective city council. (Turns out they were right, but that's just my bias speaking.)
During the debate in the legislature, the opposition parties noticed they had a mail merge database with a whole lot of street names on it, and engaged in what may be the first PC-enabled filibuster... they introduced twelve thousand separate amendments to the megacity bill that basically said that the residents of Foo Street (for 12,000 values of "Foo Street") be consulted before the megacity went through. The Tory government eventually needed to work around the parliamentary system to get a chance to cram the bill down Toronto's throat. (At the time, around 75% of people were against the megacity idea.)
I can't particularly get annoyed at this, partly because Harris is a tin pot tyrant, and partly because I think it's a really cool hack of the parliamentary system. Sure, I'll be annoyed when it happens to shoot down a bill I think is a good idea, but until then it's worth a chuckle.
Those summabitchs scare me. They recruit and enslave members. Yeah, Judaism, Christianity and Moslemism may have started out the same way; I don't care. They have for the most part mellowed. The Scientoligists and Moonies pick on the weaker member of our society and take their money and give it to the "charismatic" leaders of the church who are hypocrites and spend the money on extravagant (on sometimes illegal) lifestyles. To hell with 'em!
I thought rational choice theory told us that voting was a waste of time since the expected benefits are so much less than the cost of wasting my time thinking about it and learning about the candidates and issues.
Only irrational people vote. You don't want the world thinking America is full or irrational people do you? Stay home on election day.
As an atheist, I don't see a great problem with calling both Christianity and Scientology cults in theory (they are both irrational), and you are correct that the old Cult Awareness Network as well as other anti-cult movements are run by christians (see for instance the report by James Randi). But there is an important consideration, and that is that Scientology is MUCH MUCH worse in practice. There are nutty christians for sure, but Scientology and the ideology it is based on is rotten to the core! It is all about controlling people and milking them for money. They use classic cult methods like: deceptive recruiting (they don't tell the kooky UFO stuff to beginners, only that you can take courses to improve your concentration and confidence), insistance that you must decide quickly, love bombing, removing converts from family and friends ("they are Supressives - bad influences on you"), sleep and food deprevation to make people confused and mallaeble, black and white world view (people outside are evil, if you are not for us you must be against us), taking their money and possesions so they can't go back.
Scientology adds their own scary "1984" tactics to the mix like keeping detailed files on members and the confessions they make during "auditing", having a secret police force that spy on critics (for instance journalists or family members) and harass them. An elite "Sea Organization" Scientologist once followed me just a meter away and constantly filmed my face without saying anything or showing any expression. I don't think the camera had any film in it, but you couldn't mistake the message they were trying to send me - "We are watching you. Beware." It was very threatening.
This sounds a lot like the Amway cultists. I have cousins (thus the AC posting) who firmly believe that Amway is the path to their future happiness and anyone who isn't buying soap from them is trying to "hold them down". This is scary stuff!
I too ran afoul of the Scientologists in Boston. They wanted me to "participate in a survey" and led me to the local Scientology church (one block off Newbury Street, BTW...) to sell me on it. I knew all about it, though, so I took their survey and answered it like I thought they would want. They then put on the pressure for me to accept their "help" to make myself "better". I wonder how "better" the other two people they grabbed with me are now!
Just ask anybody in a country where they don't have real elections: is it better to be irrational and waste your time voting or spend the rest of your short, miserable life in some dictator's re-education camp for dissidents. The first thing the psychos are going to do when they seize power from apathetic people is round up the smart ass complainers.
Are there any other restrictions you'd like to place on Constitutionally-guaranteed American freedoms, such as free-speech? Any elements of American society such as free-trade you'd like to strangle to death?
Maybe I'll vote for Alan Keyes like I did last time.
Oh, nevermind... the Slashdot server doesn't have enough space to list them all...
... I dont think anybody wants bad webpages about himself. And if he is smart enough to buy those domain names BEFORE anybody else does, then he is just clever and yes, perhaps hes sending the message "dont hurt me", but it is his right to do so and anybody else does it, perhaps not in the same way, but the other candidates are having this message too.
No its more like he does not want an oposing view, those kinds of web pages don't hurt him, unless he is a sensitive prick, getting hard because someone is saying something nasty about him.
And In my opinion dies was not meant as "dont hurt me", I think it was just a trick to get some articles in the press, like this one here at Slashdot, because registering some domain names is not the way to stop pages like BushSucks...
Exactly but it will not make any diffrence at all, and chances are still against him that if someone doesn't like him already the just will look over the fucking article and still not like him, its political spin bullshit the dems and reps play all the time but this was a complete fucking waste of god damn fucking money, and you know it, I know it and any one reading the article is going to think it except the few morons out there who thinks this is brilliant, smart or what ever fucking compliment they fucking want to give about it, as they suck bushes cock, and shove their fucking nose in his ass.
you WILL find unregistered domains (like many people wrote before) but it IS a way to get articles in the press. (as you can see here)
What is a good article to one man is a stupid article to another, chances are there will be the bush drones who will say this is smart and great and what ever the fuck they want to think but other people will see it as it is, a moron wasting money on bull shit, that is not effective and do we want a man in our office who will waste money on his fucking image or one that will have more concern about the people, instead of their own fucking ass.
Yeah, the next improvement is to break the internet apart and forcing people to live in a totaly political environment where all is just propganda/lies/coverups, all the people fooled all of the time, any time a story breaks, its not because something is realy seriously wrong its because the interest of the people need to be stirred up once in a while so that they think their government is doing the right thing, when its not, when there are no problems, just fabricated problems, there are no political debates just political ranting/raving, until you believe every thing that comes out of their mouth, not asking you what you think but telling you what to think, not the people in control, but the control of the people.
Well let the herd do what it wants, if it wants to be controled and treated like working live stock, then so be it, I will work on a computer system to control this herd.
If bush had a woooden cock
YOU would have a bunch of splinters in your mouth, and maybe even your bung hole.
Its all propoganda and other bull shit, you are just picking and choosing what you want to choose, you are the one not doing research you are the one being a moron.
BUSH SUCKS, you probably didn't know this because the bushsucksdotcom is harder for morons like you to find.
When does wasting money on domain names make you smart? Never, that doesn't mean bush is for or against abortion, it does not mean he is not going fix the system to benefit rich people like his father and reagan did.... That does not mean is going to waste even more money and put the government in even more debt to other countries, this damn country is technicaly bank rupt, no wonder we are doing what ever NATO wants. Junior doesn't even have his the experience his fathers had. Junior is just using his name to get recognition, he is just a name that is why he is so worried that his name will be used with words like SUCKS, BITES, etcetera etcetera.
Next time look at what he will do for you, not what he will do for him self.... moron
Another Bill Clinton... Another president concerned with their image, and less concerned about the people he is to serve.
I think its clever if he had a plan for or against abortion, I'd think it clever if he talked about serious issues. I think its moronic to waste money on domain names, because he is afraid that people will hurt is image....
What if he became so fearfull that he bought up many media stations and search engines, and forced them to only say good things about him, well that is propoganda, and people like you eat that stuff up, and continue to follow the herd.
Heh if you want a president who is concerned more about their image then they are about you? Then go ahead vote for bush.
I like that.
I just interviewed for a tech support spot with Bush's campaign. They are pretty sharp, and the guys I talked to were Star Wars geeks as well.
Hopefully I can get them off M$ NT. I guess now I can't make any open source contributions to Al Gore's web site.
a California court ruling can't govern the use of domain names. You can buy as many of them as you want, unless there's a copyright problem in your way. This does lead to the problem of running out of domain names that we are quickly approaching, but there's nothing stopping this so far.
BushIsALittleGirl.org
gbush.com, gwbush.com and georgebush.com are all different sites. Woops. Someone missed a few.
I wonder if you could register HeilBuchanan.com?
Better would be to do a bunch of blatantly and sincerely neo-nazi domain names, with lots of neo-nazism on 'em, and pack the meta tags with perfectly normal Bush and Buchanan crapola. (I mean, as "normal" as Buchanan gets. When he's speaking to a national audience he usually does pull up short of neo-nazism.) So anyway, suck a lot of mainstream, timid voters into a fake neo-nazi web site and have ringing endorsements of Bush and Buchanan. But make them ringingly neo-nazi endorsements. I've heard that in Louisiana, David Duke occasionally lurches up out of his slumber and endorses somebody -- who invariably falls over himself denying any association! It's wonderful. Poor Duke. (By the way, Duke is well thought of in the well-dressed middle class western suburbs of Philadelphia -- they think he got a raw deal. So much for facile assumptions (mine, for example
The right wing has gotten tremendous mileage out of painting moderate centrists as "extremist left-wing radicals". Okay, fair enough. Let's play.
Buying internet domain names is also a form of freedom. Just because these anti-Bush people weren't smart enough to buy the domains first, doesn't mean Bush shouldn't be allowed to do so.
As an American, I lost ALOT of faith in my country.
I dont like how we arm militias of 3rd world countrys so we can help take over their gov
I dont like how we police the world.
I dont like how the politicians arent in it to better the country, but to better there own careers.
I dont like our over-agressive capitolism-But capitolism is a great thing, if done correctly and fairly.
They say if you dont like it, you can leave
Well, I don't like it-I can't change it, so im moving to canada.
Just my $0.02
PS: If you are going to whine and cry about spelling/grammar errors, save the bandwidth and forget reminding me how terrible I am.
They also suggest that you "protect your internet .net, .com, and .org version of your domain name. Isn't that a blatant violation of what .org and .net were supposed to be for?
brand name" by buying up the
This is slightly off topic: I just want to remind everyone to register to vote, read up on the issues, and vote. This crap does affect you and don't be turned off by the negative advertizing which is used by both sides and which is designed to disgust people into not voting. Geeks and other independent minded people are easily turned off by this stuff. Don't get fooled, find a reason to vote and do it.
You also accidentally told everyone you're a moderator...
I also thing companies should be able to buy as many domains as they wish - tho I'm waiting for IPv6/IPng to grow - wonder if we'll have this domain buying spree all over again...
I think this is the real issue anyhow, not whether he dropped 14 grand with NSI just for publicity.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Although he did register 200 domain names, making Network Solutions, even richer, he did not pick up all anti-bush names. Boycottbush.com is still open.. Network Solutions must like this new idea, and hopes even more organizations follow it...
did we pass?
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Apparently this time it was more interesting what he said than who he was.
I've always believed that there should be strict rules for buying domain names:
1. You must be some kind of an official organization
2. There should be a certain number of individual computers uniquely connected to it (no virtual hosting crap)
3. ONLY ONE domain per organization
4. That name must say who you are
Domain names were never intended to be used by everly little clown that wants a web site. They were intended to identify networks and to give organizations their own namespace.
I like Bush, but this is kinda stupid. Maybe I'll vote for Alan Keyes like I did last time.
Images of SPACE:1999 come to mind...
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
it may be childish, but they have every right to do so. Bush has lost my vote because what he is trying to do is prevent people from being able to put up a site to rally against him. That amounts as an attempt to censor people. It won't work, not on the Internet, but the fact that he tried makes him an absolutely horrible candidate as far as I am concerned. And of course, we know Gore invented the internet right? Yeah. I'm looking for a 3rd candidate.
If Bush buys bushsucks.com, he should be required to actually use it.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It doesn't matter. A president's job has little to do with technical matters. If you think Gore hasn't a clue (he actually has the ability to borrow a clue; one wishes he would remind himself of that sometimes), then Bush would be an even bigger joke. Like his father (a man I really like, BTW -- except as a politician), George W just wants to be president; the only relevant details he has worked on so far is fund-raising and focus groups. Policies are not so worked-out at this time, i.e., they're for sale to the highest bidder, be it a special interest group or a corporation. He's ahead in the polls right now, but if the press scrutinizes his past business deals (e.g. Harken Energy, and the Texas Rangers baseball team), the voters will see that he made a lot of money from his surname and the fact that his dad was (at various times) the DCI (head of the CIA), vice president, and president. Of course, the voters may ignore all that and vote for the guy anyway; I'm sure he and his handlers will have worked out explanations and alibis for everything, or Double U wouldn't have run for prez. Are top politicians in Sweden this bad? Many top American politicians are; Bush is in the 90th percentile, with plenty of company.
Oh. Did I forget my RANT tags again? Moderators: I have no problem with this being reduced to a -1 score :)
--
--
=8^
This idea isn't new. The Scientologists forced the original Cult Awareness Network to fold, via specious litigation (Scientology doesn't care about winning lawsuits, they just want to bankrupt their opponents), and then set up camp themselves as the Cult Awareness Network. So now, if you try to get information about cults via the CAN, you're actually getting information from a cult.
You know what the funniest thing is? Go to dict.org and lookup the word "cult". "Religion" is listed as a synonym. Yes, that includes, but is not limited to: Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Rastafarianism, among many others.
Any religiously-educated human being would know this. IIRC, the original (archaic) definition of cult was "a religion that's teaching revolves around one being" (or something close).
I'm sure it goes without saying that the original group was religious as well, I'm not going to say what religion, but it should be obvious to most. The large cult gets trounced by a smaller cult that got slammed by the large cult. Serves the large cult right.
I'm no scientologist either, but it disgusts me to find groups out there devotes their time to promoting their ideals through their own hypocracy and bashing others.
-Erik-
We have 6 candidates
How about giving each 16,66667 % of the vote. Better than apathy and it sends a message to them.
Vote NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Law requires that if a candidate is not within a majority of 1/ of the vote, that all candidates will not be allowed to participate in a new election.
So, hence, vote NONE OF THE ABOVE if you do not like exactly what you are getting now. Keep doing it until you get someone you like... More people should do this, it's not throwing your vote away if you can get the majority to understand what it means.
And this goes for representatives and senators also. Remember that the electoral college is a good portion of the vote as well, so don't bother voting for a democrat president and a republican representative/senator, as half (i think half, someone correct me here if not) of your vote contradicts the other.
Personally I won't vote for any political seats until I move of of this shit-for-nothing country as no matter how I vote I get screwed in the ass by someone who sees their back pocket as a more important issue than the people. Even nowadays when you vote on laws the govt doesn't agree with they try to repeal them. (See oregon and medicinal marijuana, the state legislature is still trying to repeal it, even though it passed with overwhelming majority)
I'm ranting - so what.
-Erik-
Perhaps someone is using their domain name for workstation hostnames, email, a gopher server...
Is that so bad?
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here!
It's not squatting, the domains are paid for. Squatters just re-register every X (60 or 90?) days. When NSI doesn't get the money, they release the name and the squatter re-registers.
How could this possibly be a restriction of free speech? The domain names were open for anybody to take, the Bush guys just got to them first. You are still free to put up a site that makes fun of Bush, details why he's a bad choice, or even documents why you think he's the leader of a vampire cult. You just have to think of a name that hasn't been registered yet.
I accidentally moderated this down instead of up.
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
just joking . . .
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
I don't think so. Frankly, I think most people will just laugh over this one (though it's a brilliant move, campaign-wise).
This is not an attack on free speech in any way. People can still say whatever they want about him.
Since when does stuff like this make someone briliant? What when microsoft buys or destroys other companys is that briliant? When a criminal shoots someone in the head so they won't call the police, is that briliant? When atheletes cheat in the olympics and get away with it, are they briliant as well? When someone cheats on a math test and does not get caught, are they also briliant?
When someone compares the buying of domain names to various illegal and/or reprehensible acts, are they being brilliant?
Its just like saying "you can say anything you want, but you can't say it out loud".
Oh, please. You make it sound like he's banned anti-Bush Websites. He hasn't. Yeah, now the sites are going to be something like bushsucks.somewhere.com, or maybe something a bit more obscure like www.nowhere.org/~fvj2354/bush/ih8bush.html. Big deal.
By the way, I suggest you read the Gnome vs. KDE flamewars sometime. Why? Take a look at all the posts. Every time the word "sucks" or "blows" or anything is used in a post, you'll notice that the person doesn't have anything worthwhile or serious to say. Those who are really trying to make a point never use language like that (I dare you to find me a serious post on the issue that has the word "sucks" anywhere in it except to quote someone else). My point: yeah, the little oh-boy-lets-badmouth-a-candidate kiddies are going to be deterred by this. But not the professionals, and not the people who actually have something to say. Bush hasn't stopped the pros. He didn't mean to do that either.
Why is he so worried? Unless he is bad, and is doing bad stuff, why is he so paranoid about the domain names? Who would really take a website created by a 15 year old seriously.
Buying up all the simple names is just going to cause the people who want to make 'bush sucks' sites to be more creative. Public figures (i.e. celebrities) are always going to have people voice their opinions against them; they should learn to deal with it. I figure it shouldn't be any different in the political context.
To be sure, there's all the domains out there up for grabs and the free domain hosting services- they're not going to pass up people wanting domains... This just came across as a rich SOB trying to quell any dissent- and I was going to vote for the man; now I'm not so sure.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That's exactly why we need more top-level domains. .com, .net and .org just aren't enough for the general public. We need a .sucks domain for these sorts of sites. And just as how .edu sites are only given out to appropriate organizations, NS or whoever should check up to make sure that only poorly designed sites that rail against something can keep their domain.
Dibs on networksolutions.sucks
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Oh Bush is pretty savvy on technical matters. We've been having problems with our mail server for a while, but George came over and fixed it.
His brother Jeb, OTOH, kept trying to jam the ethernet cable into the phone jack.... Don't ask Jeb Bush to help with anything technical.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Two things
First, I doubt that I will vote for someone who is squatting on over 200 domain names.
Second, Isnt this in some way a restriction of free speech?
I started with nothing and I still have most of it.
Secondly, who would really use these domain names? Check out www.clintonsucks.com. There's an example of somebody who did buy a similar domain name. Kinda funny page too.
Cheers,
Perrin.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
LOL. I hope this one doesn't get moderated down like the last one. It's harmless and provides comedy relief.
Cheers,
Perrin.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
In a perfect world, yes. I'd never run a sucks site anyway.
Cheers,
Perrin.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
I agree with you about the childishness, but if I was looking for an anti- website, I'd go to sucks.com. I'd be hoping for some actually reasonable objections to that person. I think that often I'd be able to find them (though I haven't tried that sort of thing in a while). Maybe I'm just naive, though.
Cheers,
Perrin.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
Heh, I don't think this is really an attack on free speech. He wants to make it harder to find anti-Bush web sites. That will make it a little harder. I think it's a pretty smart move. And it makes me laugh too. Way to go, George.
Cheers,
Perrin.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
As for wanting the publicity, boff... I'm not sure I agree that "any press is good press". Are people really going to be more likely to vote for him, having read this?
Incidentally, I have nothing against the man myself. I don't live in the US and have no idea of his policies, anyways. Just pointing out that this was a dumb idea.
Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty
So George buys up some insulting domain names. But first of all, it's not hard to come up with new domain names like that -- bushstinks, etc. Secondly, who would really use these domain names? Even fruity Al "I invented the Internet" Gore isn't so childish that he'd be interested in using them for his own sites. So what did Bush really gain by this?
Ok, I'm not a big politician fan, but after seeing some of Al Gore's comments, it's refreshing to see someone has some forsight. I think it's hilarious and cool. I also think that it's ashame to see all the negative comments. can't we all just get al... .. arrrrgggghh.
Awesome!
Given that I usually get my url's from references from people I know, from a search engine, or from postings on newsgroups/slashdot, I don't see how this would stop any anti-Bush sentiment from showing up on the Internet.
Looks like it's time to start looking for an original domain name that attacks Bush.
Ben
You will definitely have time to register and be processed. If your state has a motor voter law, then just go to the DMV and do something to your driver's license. The voter registration forms are printed on the back of most other paperwork so it's really easy to do both at the same time.
If your state doesn't have a motor voter law, look up your town's electorial commission in the phone book, phone them for instructions on registering and just do it.
I live in Cambridge, MA, and there are voter registration tables at street fairs and a lot of other public events. It's not exactly a normal town, since there's more registered Libertarians than Republicans in it, but even less activist towns have to let you register if you can prove:
1. citizenship
2. residence in the town
3. that you have no felony convictions
While in some cases the *sucks.com may the gist of the idea of the content in the webpage as well, I think for many of those cases, its just the most. Well. Its the most practical way of having a anti-whatever site. I mean, "ithinkclintonisimpracticalforthecountrybecauseofh isviewonsuchandsuch.com" is just not gonna cut it. Especially if you hate him for lots of reasons :)
Should be www.microsfot.com, not .org:
whois microsfot.com
[rs.internic.net]
Registrant:
JS technologies SA (MICROSFOT2-DOM)
Rue du Centre 72
St-Sulpice, 1025
CH
Domain Name: MICROSFOT.COM
"www.bushdidnthinkofthisone.org"...
I am sure the 200 names Bush registered only represent a very small fraction of the possibilities.
Forcing your opponents to be more creative is not always the best way to go.
Use a name like "insert_name_here_is_the_greatest_human_being_in_t he_world.com" and then trash that person
hehe...I think I'm going to setup bush.is.insane.com.
--
.-.--
The domains sucks.com and rules.com are not being used for this sort of purpose. sucks.com exhibits a "coming soon" sign, and rules.com seems to have been snaffled by a speculator/hosting company.
If I owned these domains I would be selling subdomains, and making lotsa dosh! I shudder to think of the money geeks would pay to get domains like microsoft.sucks.com, or linux.rules.com. People would probably play ~internic rates for subdomains there, IMHO....
Besides, it be much more fun to tease those who only sorta get the tech, but exploiting holes in their knowledge....
... and today's pet project has
This idea isn't new. The Scientologists forced the original Cult Awareness Network to fold, via specious litigation (Scientology doesn't care about winning lawsuits, they just want to bankrupt their opponents), and then set up camp themselves as the Cult Awareness Network. So now, if you try to get information about cults via the CAN, you're actually getting information from a cult.
That was about three years ago.
Erm, my heart bleeds for all the poor flame artists who will find it marginally harder to throw personal insults at someone because they disagree with his politics. Um, not.
I'd have to say that buying domains instead of sending threatening letters is a definite improvement.
On that note, I highly recommend Project Vote Smart < http://www.vote-smart.org/>.
This non-partisan site has lots of detailed info on all the candidates and so forth, including issues responses and recent voting history. That is, if they've been a Congressman, it lists how they voted on various bills.. very good solid data. (Could use more info on those bills, though.)
Anyway, this is the quickest way to check out tons of solid facts about various candidates.
Alot of people/companies buy alot of domain names that are related to them, or can be used against them. At $35 it's an inexpensive way to protect yourself. It would be a story if he DIDN'T reg the names.
Apple owns 100's of domain names to point to thier website, Nike owns around 500 I belive, and I'm sure there are alot of others who own that amount of domain names.
And I'll be damned, look where www.microsfot.org takes me too.....
I think we should all chip in and buy Monica Lewinski one of the "suckclinton" domains. After all the work she did, and the pain and heartache she had to endure afterwords, it would be a small gesture of appreciation from the community for the months of entertainment we were afforded, mostly at her expense.
:-)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
eatbush.com...
Yahoo! started out as two students with a web site. Requirements for "some kind of official organization" only limit access to big corporations, and that hardly seems desirable to me. However, the current domain name system is getting kind of silly. We should have dozens of top level domains, each with their own meaning and requirements. For example, there should be something like ".inc" for registered corporations, ".tmk" for registered trademarks, ".per" for personal domains (which can conflict with trademarks--the presumption would be that they are not for trade), ".alt" (anything goes like the ".alt" hierarchy). Maybe most of the 36^3 possible 3 letter TLDs should be available to make sure that no single company or individual can register all the second level names; there ought to be room for "bush.sux".
Just because Bush bought the domains, it doesn't mean he'll set them up to point to his campaign site... They could just point to nothing. The main goal is to prevent others from using them, not for him to use them himself.
Of course it is.
/. before. Consider the plannedparenthood.* domain squabble (where that name was used for an anti-abortion website). Should anyone actually type in "bushsucks.com" (or "go bush sucks" etc.), instead of getting what they expect, they'll get the pitch.
First of all, the main reason for buying the domain name is to keep it out of the hands of the opposition.
But second, it's fairly clever to have someone looking for one thing find exactly the opposite message -- like sometimes happens with various brand names, as we've seen on
To be really fiendishly clever, they could direct people coming to those negative URLs to specific targeted pitches designed for people who already dislike the candidate (or other product). Focus groups could tell them what stuff works best for these people, and it's probably not the same rah-rah stuff that would be at the main home page.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
...to have people that click on the URL www.bushsucks.com redirected to his original homepage? Isn't that kind of like admitting that he, in fact, sucks? Just a thought.
But don't go dizzin our PM coz he will kick y0 ass =)
First he will grab your face and shove you away,
then he will get a bunch of your friends and pepper spray the shit out of them!
Canada: Our Leaders Don't Need No Bodyguards!
=P~
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Not that I'm defending Gore-the-Internet-Inventor, but...
I think it's revealing that Bush was willing to do something so petty just to attempt to keep people from speaking against him. It's analogous to a rogue moderator marking down messages that disagree with his opinion. Regardless of Bush's stand on "important" issues, there's no way I could vote for him after reading this, simply because it shows that he's basically a dishonorable person. He just proved himself to be just another Clinton.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Those were registered by Mr. Bush's proponents several years ago in order to encourage him to run for president, AFAIK.
And he can't get bush.com, some other guy named Bush registered it in 1995 (smart guy, that one. Got his own name first!)
If you check out his server, you see they're running Apache/Php. Thats good enough for me. He's got my vote (I'm republican anyway).
blowmegeorge.com
blowmegeorge.net
blowmegeorge.org
Of course, I'm stuck in Sweden at the moment, so I don't have a clue about the potential candidates. I know that Gore doesn't have a clue, but what about George, how does he stand up when it comes to technical matters?
---
But how do you deal with trademarks from different industries? What if a software company has a trademark X and a clothing brand also has the same trademark? Who should be entitled to the domain name?
---
IPv6 does not affect the number of domain name possibilities, just the number of IP addresses that we currently have available. For companies that are using virtual hosting, they do NOT need a seperate IP address for their www.companyname.com address. This was one of the major changes introduced in HTTP 1.1.
---
That might be even more frightening than some actually having picked up the domain name... I knew Bush was "right," but this is ridiculous...
Guess he's not thinking about the Internet that much...
--
Neurowiz
-----BEGIN ANNOYING SIG BLOCK-----
Evan
rooooar
I just did a search on Network Solutions' site for www.fuckgeorgebush.com and it's available.
That's the only one I would want to register anyway.
He may be a great candidate, but I had enough of his father in the white house, and enough of him governing my state to last a lifetime. I can just imagine what he would bring to running the country...
Fuck Democrats.
Fuck Republicans.
Vote Libertarian.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I run BeOS. The rules don't apply.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I run BeOS. The rules don't apply.
We need a better parallel between the trademark naming system and domain names.
In some countries you must have a formal existence to obtain a domain name. This is good in that it prevents the same sort of ridiculous competition over the .com domains.
On the other hand this does not fit well with today's requisite for brand building. It would be catastrophic for a company to invest time and money to obtain a trademark to then find out the domain got snatched by a new (or overseas) company featuring a name very similar to the trademark. Should the Internet submit itself to the burden and slowness of feet-dragging administrations? No! Domain names are a good beacon to signal "I am here, this is my trade name, and I'm about to make this official".
Nevertheless I think it would be good if domain names were revoked after a two-year period if they did not materialize into anything official or productive. It should be possible to challenge domain names through a well defined protocol rather than through legal battles.
I could also imagine a not-for-profit organization which would take care of much demanded domain names. You would have a menu in your browser with a list of classes of products or services (something similar to the 42 trademark classes). You'd select a class of product and, depending on the requested URL, your browser would take you to a totally different server.
Actually, I think his supporters probably footed this bill under his exploratory committee. I don't think this "rich SOB" paid any money into his campaign yet: he's still figuring out if he can do his campaign without asking for government funds. George W. isn't that bad; he's at least smart enough to turn $600,000 into $14 million LEGALLY (but at taxpayer expense). All that Al Bore has managed to do is propose social agendas as a career politician. I'm still voting for Harry Browne, though.
>Why do people in general have to create sucks.com sites?
1. Greed
2. Ad Banners
In principle I agree with you, but then there's also a question of legitimate usage of multiple domains linking to one site. I can see a genuine requirement for having foo.com, foo.net, foobar.com, foobar.net linking to one page.
.com, .net, .org and appropriate countries, but if there were unlimited top domains, then it would be impossible to protect every combination.
;-)
I guess that if there were a more flexible system of top-domains, or a completely new naming system like RealNames, then there would be less incentive to squat every available combination. It's feasible whene there's just
Don't see a solution happening for some time yet though
A little planning goes a long way...
Canada angle -
Provincial election underway in Ontario. The not-so-bright incumbent had his domain name registered by an opposing party. (www.mikeharris.com) I live in Ontario, and don't like the guy, but this kind of trick is slimy.
Domain name squatting is for jerks.
Well, it also defeats the purpose of multiple top level domains.
.com is for companies, then for-profit companies shouldn't be able to register .org... There need to be categories for vastly different types of use, but not so many that companies will feel the need for more than one to cover their area of bussiness.
.com should be as freely available for an 8yo with a lemonade stand, as for IBM. I do want to set limits on domains saying that if they aren't used, they are simply not renewed, and returned to the pool.
It's like when 888 numbers became available. 40% or something (I heard the number secondhand) were immediately taken by the companies who had the same 800 number. Then a bunch more were no doubt taken by people like the whitehouse.com guy.
We need to introduce TLDs that are have vastly different meaning, and do NOT overlap. If
And I don't really see the need for multiple domains to point to the same place. It's all one big 'virtual' land grab, and we shouldn't put up with it.
I don't want to set limits on who can own domains. A
The main offenders are companies, registering everything they might ever want, and then pointing them all to the same page, or to a 'Coming soon' page dated from '89.
'We' invented this place. Anyone who has written open source code, or supported the diversity of the net has contributed to this. Should we now step back and hand control of our new world to those who sat back and watched, and now want us to give it to them?
I think not. When dealing with the masses, who haven't learned that good things come from cooperation, we need rules to keep them from simply fencing off as much as they can see and claiming it as theirs.
I suggest that a good way of regulating use of domains would be to revoke (at renewal time) any domains where more than two point to the same web page, or any domains that have no content past the initial screen.
If some company wants fifty domains, but is willing to generate fifty sets of content, then let them. If they just want to keep other people from using them, then we should step in.
Bush registers a bunch of domain names, Proctor and Gamble (?) registers another huge number, etc... And we wonder why we're running out of domain names. It's like giving a class C to every AOL user.
I would suggest a good rule for domain name registration authorities is that a company can have its domain name renewal denied if it hasn't made use of the name. If all a name does is point to a "Coming soon" or "Buy this domain" page for a year, then we should return it to the pile and let someone else have a go at it. Ditto when someone has a bunch of domain names point to the same page.
Bush isn't doing anything wrong, but he's still being a jerk by buying something just to keep someone else from having it. We should work for rules that stop this sort of land-grab behavior.
If he can't put up content on every domain name, and not just link them all to one page, then let him, but if he's just pissing all over stuff to keep other people away... Well, we don't need that bullshit on the net as well as in the physical world.
Actually, this is due to alternating LRLR on a QWERTY, a more common error for MHz touchtypists. Given this, mcirosoft.com is a likely mistype, which, of course, is registered. It offers a redirection, plus a plug for another product.
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
Wow, that's the best laugh I've had in a while. I'm not sure if that 's brilliant or silly, but I do find it amusing.
I can imagine George and his advisors sitting around some large expensive table discussing if they want to buy www.bushblows.com. I'll bet they were laughing as hard as I was.
It says something about the power; or maybe the perceived power of the internet. It's really amazing how far it has come in the span of a few years. I was thinking back to 94 when I got my first account on Prodigy. You had to pay extra to go on the "Web" at that time and the speed coming through prodigy was horrible, but I'll bet I didn't sleep for a week.
Now the internet seems so commonplace, having an email adr. is the norm not the execption, and major political powers are giving some serious thought on how to harness the power.
This should be interesting.
With Clinton, thats the only thing he is capable of. Bush has a high-tech savy that Gore can only dream of. For example, there was a project at Argonne National labs which did two things 1) design a nuclear reactor to burn the long term radioactive waste materials into short term radioactive stuff and 2) a truly safe nuclear reactor (kill everyone there, screw everything up and it shuts down.)
What did Gore do ? He immediately closed both down completely. If thats a high tech problem solver then I'm the Queen of England.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Let's see. One of the major American presidential contenders cluelessly claims to have created the Internet, while the other actually does some research to figure out how it works and uses it to his advantage. One throws up a site with lots of open source buzzwords in a transparent and lame attempt to get free labor out of the geek community without any understanding of that community. The other does enough research to realize which domains competitors and detractors would try to register, and takes action to mitigate the threat as quietly as possible.
While Gore claims to be the high-tech candidate, I think Bush is the man for the geek community. Why? His actions show that instead of jumping on buzzwords and trying to jump in front of the crowd so that he can call himself a leader, Bush is actually willing to do his homework and study the nature of our world before he opens his mouth.
Note please do not construe this post as flaim bait. This forum isn't about who supports welfare, abortion, bombing soveriegn countries, etc. It's about technology and which candidate can best drive it forward. Please, please, please, limit responses to this.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Don't forget about http2:
http2//www.bush-sucks.com
http2//ihatebush
http2//bushisanidiot
It looks like the power players in Washington D.C. are starting to see the net as threat and also as a way to reach people. After the Minnesota governor race when a independent ran and one with a grassroot campaign using the net to reach his voters. The two other party's must see the net as way to reach voters they have never reached before. As for Bush buying the domains that reflect bad on him and point them to his site, that is just like any tactic in war. And this is what JR thinks he is fighting, a information war and by controling the negitive sites he feels this will help him win
Don't panic - Hitchhikers guide 2 the galaxy
It's even a somewhat interesting site. Presents some pros and cons.
www.iinventedtheinternet.com
-Zen I'm gonna make the _world_ my bitch.
Honestly, I thought it was kinda dumb that Bush had to do this....but I can understand his reasoning...
Why do people in general have to create sucks.com sites? Yeah, you may not like the person, but you can still let the person campaign/sell/express their opinion. Going out and just saying they suck is just childish. If you want to vent your frustrations with someone, you can find a far more adult way to do it somewhere else.
(And I'm not associated with *any* political party...I don't agree with any of them)
Anyone capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.
Douglas Adams, The Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Go ahead walk up to Bush to tell him what you think of his ideas. Do you really think he gives a crap.
We have 6 candidates
How about giving each 16,66667 % of the vote. Better than apathy and it sends a message to them.
But then any history teacher will tell you the best way to introduce chaos (like in Russia) is to destroy a clear succession of power. Confucius say "Someone must be on top" I don't know if he means sex or politics.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
socialism is still a theory
capitalism is still a theory
Feudalism never ended. People just feel rich because of suits.
communism is extreme socialism for control of power. Some cultures' medium of value(currency) is power.
protectionism is extreme capitalism for control of
money. Some cultures' medium of value is money.
so far no culture has held value as a medium of value.
stop trying to legislate or institutionalize good will. nothing lasts past a few generations after its inception. every generation is as far from the last generation as the next will be from it because nothing changes just the percentage of different qualities of character. stop being so ridiculously enthusiastic, it's sickening.
Read Forever Flowing, A Captive Mind, watch "Brazil" a few times.
"but we can still do much better..." go back to coding.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Well, if Bush was a trade name of a company and another company in a similar field used that term in their ad, then yes, it would be illegal. But, this is a person and a campaign. All is far in love, war, and politics.
IANAL, but I have been forced to watch Perry Mason a bazillion times. (I have also read many law books too.)
RB
ROFL!
Slimy? I think not. If Harris' campaign managers weren't asleep at the wheel, they'd have registered his name long ago.
G.W. Bush and his team understand the impact of the Net, Mike Harris et al does not.
suckbush.com and suckbush.org are both still available also. .net, and .org.
funnily enough so are suckclinton.com,
repetition is unlikely but a good boy scout should always be
prepared.
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
These stories weren't very interesting to begin with and now they're just plain annoying. I don't care.
I care about Linux news, but not what people have to say about piddly bi-weekly kernel improvements.
Thank you, and good night.
Hands in my pocket
Looks like NaderRules.{com|org|net} is still available... ;-)
NADER 2000!!
And, btw, go Green Party!
If you vote for Democrats or Republicans... YOU'RE JUST THROWING YOUR VOTE AWAY!!!
And so are iloveslashdot.net and iloveslashdot.com. On the other hand, so are ihateslashdot.com, net and org...
Hey I dont really see it as Bush squatting 200 domain names, I see it more as someone who is or has some type of celebrity status just protecting themselves from possible injury. The law says that celebrities do have the right to protect their identity and their personae (Vanna White v. Samsung), even if they are not actually included in the advertisement or their voice is not used. So think of this as George's way of protecting his image from pages meant to harm his image.
I blog, they blog, do you
Canada does this. They have very strict
rules on who gets what type of domain name,
and how many you can have. An organization
can only have ONE domain name, and it either
has to relate to their company name, or
a registered trademark. So now, for example,
you can have either coke.ca or coca-cola.ca,
but not both. You wouldn't believe the hoops
I had to jump through to get pollock.ca!
Jason
I remember that experiment. Funny how that works.
Of course, what would be yet more entertaining along the lines of www.HeilBuchannan.com etc would be having links to some more liberal sites.
Didn't the NAACP or someone do that with www.kkk.com??
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
... I dont think anybody wants bad webpages about himself. And if he is smart enough to buy those domain names BEFORE anybody else does, then he is just clever and yes, perhaps hes sending the message "dont hurt me", but it is his right to do so and anybody else does it, perhaps not in the same way, but the other candidates are having this message too.
And In my opinion dies was not meant as "dont hurt me", I think it was just a trick to get some articles in the press, like this one here at Slashdot, because registering some domain names is not the way to stop pages like BushSucks... you WILL find unregistered domains (like many people wrote before) but it IS a way to get articles in the press. (as you can see here)
Lets just say that i hate George Bush and I want to look for some funny pictures of him or something and I type in: "bush sucks".
Will George Bush then spam the search engines so that I will just be forwarded to his offical site?
Just a thought
Hey,
I thought "suck" was one of NSI's 7 words?? Is this a special case??? WTH is up w/ that?