So no research ever happens without federal funding? No research project has any chance of producing useful results without federal funding? It's a pretty sad state of affairs if the federal government has somehow become the driving force behind all scientific research in the US.
There's a fairly significant distinction between not having federal backing and not being able (or allowed) to conduct the research. Pointing that out is perfectly legitimate. Brushing it off as pedantic is absurd.
The post is a little light on details, so I'm taking some liberties here. ..
Just because the website for a domain doesn't have anything unique or interesting on it doesn't mean the owner is a cybersquatter. The owner could just as easily be using the domain for e-mail only. Or for un-Iinked web pages for personal (or private business) use. I own several domains like this. Public websites are only one single (potential) aspect of a domain. It could legitimately and happily be used in other ways. Or maybe he really plans to put a site up some day but hasn't gotten around to it yet.
My advice to the submitter is to first and foremost keep these things in mind. Unless you know for certain the domain is being squatted on, don't approach negotiations from that standpoint.
I would suggest deciding up front what the domain is worth to you. If you're eventually unable to agree on a price in that neighborhood (or below), you need to be prepared to move on. You have no leverage. Period.
If you're unwilling to move on, then clearly the value you initially placed on the domain is too low. Just because you don't want to pay more, doesn't mean you're entitled to get it for less. The domain is worth exactly what someone who wants it is willing to pay for it. Not a penny less. Not some arbitrary "fair" amount. That's how free market economics works.
Start by soliciting an offer. Do your best to get the owner to throw out a number first. If you absolutely must make the first offer, start low, but don't be unreasonable or insulting. I wouldn't expect any half-decent domain to go for less than $100.
Pretend you're buying a used car and you should make out OK.
A tangential issue is to CYA after an agreement is reached. Take the necessary steps to protect your payment and ensure full transfer of ownership.
... What/is/ important is that he surrounds himself with competent advisors.
What you need to watch out for is a candidate who/presumes/ to know/exactly/ how to resolve the situation and who justifies this with a reference to some ideology or other.
...
I agree with that first bit wholeheartedly. What you really need to watch out for is a candidate who historically consistently surrounds himself with "advisers" of dubious quality. . .
Why is it that tax cuts targeted on big businesses and the wealthy never get labeled as redistribution of wealth? And yet that has been precisely what we have been doing for years.
Err, exactly whose money goes into the pockets of a big business when you cut their taxes? I'm pretty sure it's theirs. More specifically, you simply take less out to begin with. That's pretty much why we don't call it a re-distribution of wealth when we cut taxes, only when we increase them.
Now, whose money goes into the pockets of Joe Sixpack who doesn't pay any taxes to begin with but gets a magical rebate after Obama's new plan? That's the real question. . .
I completely agree with you, but I think it's important to stress the key issue here.
Folks wouldn't be changing their vote because he can't keep the score straight. They'd be changing it because he fervently claims to be such a huge fan and supporter of the team while seemingly demonstrating a complete lack of same.
It's the petty misrepresentation that may swing a few votes (I stress MAY).
While I agree with your argument, I should point out that the Jib Jab piece isn't necessarily parody - it's satire. Satire does not enjoy the same degree of protection as parody.
I think it wasn't parodying the "This Land" song, it was satirizing the political campaign. One could probably make a case for the reverse - but what do you think is more likely?
"I think I'll make fun of Dubya and Kerry. This old song could be useful."
-or-
"I think I'll make fun of this old song. Dubya and Kerry could be useful."
You're right, it is time to start placing blame where it belongs - with the bastards writing the viruses and spreading them. I suppose now you want to go after police every time someone gets shot. Surely it's not the fault of the guy pulling the trigger. Damn cops, if they would only get out of the donut shop and do their jobs no one would ever be murdered again. . .
My concern regarding this list is how it may be used by the exempt entities. All of these political and non-profit organizations are free to interrupt my dinnertime at will. What's to keep them from harvesting this uber-list to augment their dialing pool? I may just wind up with more telemarketing calls after I jump on this registry than I ever did before. Granted they'll be "for a good cause" but I prefer to choose my own causes, thank you very much!
Slashdot Mirror
I like where you're going with this. I'd like to produce your movie.
They do when every house has a couple dozen of them and everyone knows how to use them effectively.
Now THAT'S funny.
It did not!
So no research ever happens without federal funding? No research project has any chance of producing useful results without federal funding? It's a pretty sad state of affairs if the federal government has somehow become the driving force behind all scientific research in the US.
There's a fairly significant distinction between not having federal backing and not being able (or allowed) to conduct the research. Pointing that out is perfectly legitimate. Brushing it off as pedantic is absurd.
The post is a little light on details, so I'm taking some liberties here. . .
Just because the website for a domain doesn't have anything unique or interesting on it doesn't mean the owner is a cybersquatter. The owner could just as easily be using the domain for e-mail only. Or for un-Iinked web pages for personal (or private business) use. I own several domains like this. Public websites are only one single (potential) aspect of a domain. It could legitimately and happily be used in other ways. Or maybe he really plans to put a site up some day but hasn't gotten around to it yet.
My advice to the submitter is to first and foremost keep these things in mind. Unless you know for certain the domain is being squatted on, don't approach negotiations from that standpoint.
I would suggest deciding up front what the domain is worth to you. If you're eventually unable to agree on a price in that neighborhood (or below), you need to be prepared to move on. You have no leverage. Period.
If you're unwilling to move on, then clearly the value you initially placed on the domain is too low. Just because you don't want to pay more, doesn't mean you're entitled to get it for less. The domain is worth exactly what someone who wants it is willing to pay for it. Not a penny less. Not some arbitrary "fair" amount. That's how free market economics works.
Start by soliciting an offer. Do your best to get the owner to throw out a number first. If you absolutely must make the first offer, start low, but don't be unreasonable or insulting. I wouldn't expect any half-decent domain to go for less than $100.
Pretend you're buying a used car and you should make out OK.
A tangential issue is to CYA after an agreement is reached. Take the necessary steps to protect your payment and ensure full transfer of ownership.
LG.
... /is/ important is that he surrounds himself with competent advisors.
What
What you need to watch out for is a candidate who /presumes/ to know /exactly/ how to resolve the situation and who justifies this with a reference to some ideology or other.
...
I agree with that first bit wholeheartedly. What you really need to watch out for is a candidate who historically consistently surrounds himself with "advisers" of dubious quality. . .
LG.
Why is it that tax cuts targeted on big businesses and the wealthy never get labeled as redistribution of wealth? And yet that has been precisely what we have been doing for years.
Err, exactly whose money goes into the pockets of a big business when you cut their taxes? I'm pretty sure it's theirs. More specifically, you simply take less out to begin with. That's pretty much why we don't call it a re-distribution of wealth when we cut taxes, only when we increase them.
Now, whose money goes into the pockets of Joe Sixpack who doesn't pay any taxes to begin with but gets a magical rebate after Obama's new plan? That's the real question. . .
LG.
I completely agree with you, but I think it's important to stress the key issue here.
Folks wouldn't be changing their vote because he can't keep the score straight. They'd be changing it because he fervently claims to be such a huge fan and supporter of the team while seemingly demonstrating a complete lack of same.
It's the petty misrepresentation that may swing a few votes (I stress MAY).
While I agree with your argument, I should point out that the Jib Jab piece isn't necessarily parody - it's satire. Satire does not enjoy the same degree of protection as parody.
I think it wasn't parodying the "This Land" song, it was satirizing the political campaign. One could probably make a case for the reverse - but what do you think is more likely?
"I think I'll make fun of Dubya and Kerry. This old song could be useful."
-or-
"I think I'll make fun of this old song. Dubya and Kerry could be useful."
You're right, it is time to start placing blame where it belongs - with the bastards writing the viruses and spreading them. I suppose now you want to go after police every time someone gets shot. Surely it's not the fault of the guy pulling the trigger. Damn cops, if they would only get out of the donut shop and do their jobs no one would ever be murdered again. . .
Though fortunately the baseball season largely coincides with television's summer off-season.
My concern regarding this list is how it may be used by the exempt entities. All of these political and non-profit organizations are free to interrupt my dinnertime at will. What's to keep them from harvesting this uber-list to augment their dialing pool? I may just wind up with more telemarketing calls after I jump on this registry than I ever did before. Granted they'll be "for a good cause" but I prefer to choose my own causes, thank you very much!