The 20 cent nonrefundability has already been ratified and will take effect in 2009.
The June thing was to prevent registrars from offering refunds in certain cases.
"Instead Icann will vote on a plan in June that would bar domain registrars from offering a refund for any domain names deleted during the grace period that exceeds 10 percent of its new registrations in a month. The board has already voted to make their 20-cent per domain fee nonrefundable in 2009 to deter high volume domain tasters who are sampling millions of names. "
Then the company could pull its "right to terminate" clause in its TOS, and point out that as a minor they have no right to an account without parental consent in the first place.
I had nothing to say about his character, merely his geek rating.
Since you are determined to twist my words and get my reasoning totally bass ackwards, I am not going to dignify any of your posts with a response in this article.
And I'm also terminating this debate in the interests of not making any mods waste points on an infinite loop.
I was merely stating that the stupidity of his flapping his big fat gums at the trial and shooting himself in the foot calls into question his competence as a coder in my eyes. The fact that reiser has catastrophic directory corruption bugs is evidence of my theory.
Inflammatory, most likely. However, I do have at least some evidence to back it up. I'll leave it to the mods to decide if that's good enough.
Great, since the bankruptcy has a 10 percent fee incentive to fatten the bankruptcy estate, the court will probably be biased in favor of disallowing a constructive trust.
I don't think Hans Reiser ever bothered to watch The Simpsons.
"Drunken hicks of the jury..." --> chain gang.
Seriously, what kind of a moronic idiot would blabbermouth to the jury when he doesn't need to?
Speaking in your own defense is a gesture both of defiance and panic. It says to the jury "Hey, my case is going so rotten that I have to open my big fat mouth to defend myself even though the constitution says I don't have to", as well as a smartassed "Woo hoo I'm such a hotshot I can defend myself even when I'm facing first degree murder charges".
The ONLY time you SHOULD speak up is if you are forced to, and legally, you can only be forced to if you have immunity. In the case where you are being detained as a terrorist or are otherwise being deprived of your constitutional rights, you should still keep your mouth shut.
Ordinarily, I'd stick up for him purely out of geek pride. However, IMHO his sheer stupidity is grounds for revoking his geek card, and with what I now hear of hash collisions in ReiserFS causing directory garbage (silent corruption, always a MAJOR no-no in ANY situation, especially a kernel based file system), I feel more at ease that his conviction will not ruin too many things even if ReiserFS were to go belly up.
I honestly do hope that, in the interests of pure justice, the final verdict will accurately reflect the facts. But he no longer has my sympathy as a fellow geek.
And his company is likely to be sold off anyway. Even if he does eventually beat the guilty verdict, he's liable for wrongful death. Simply being convicted of murder is prima facie evidence in a civil lawsuit. He'll probably go bankrupt even if he DOES avoid prison. Just like OJ.
Hans Reiser, if you want to keep your geek card, then please keep your goddamned mouth SHUT.
You can still be detained by the police without being arrested.
If you get up and leave, that's fleeing, an arrestable offense.
And remember, constitutional protections only work if they are enforced. If some cop breaks a million laws in getting a confession and you can't prove it was coerced, you're screwed.
Plus if the feds accuse you of being a terrorist, you have no rights.
America needs to wake up and remember how our consitutional rights are really fragile.
If you run into an orphan work, you submit it to the copyright office and wait a certain period of time, during which the copyright office lists it as an orphan work.
If after the waiting period, nobody comes forward to claim it, you can go nuts.
If the owner surfaces, he is presumed to have vicariously done everything that you did with you as his agent. Pretty much, he's licensed it to you by his inaction and may be entitled to back royalties.
I think something similiar should apply for patents (Yes rambus I'm talking to you)
Actually, your insurance company pays for your losses whether or not you DO manage to sue the real culprit.
And in some ways, you're not allowed to sue, at least, if your insurance pays, you can't sue for anything beyond your deductible.
I think there's a principal known as subrogation where, in exchange for covering your losses, you surrender your right to sue to the insurance company.
Of course, the fact that an insurance company gets to sue in your place and potentially recover, AND also gets paid insurance premiums for the privilege, doesn't speak well for how greedy they are to be making money coming and going. But that's a question for another arena;).
And spreading the risk is one of the functions of insurance. Just with government funded insurance, the "risk sharers" just also happen to be tax payers. Uncle comment by AK Marc (uid 707885) was right on the point.
The old fashioned rule of "tough shit" whenever something goes wrong is exactly the attitude adopted by people who play the dog eat dog game for keeps in the real world. It is also the attitude of insurance companies who would LOVE to use genetic testing as a way to cherry pick among their insured.
With a ban on discrimination, insurance companies won't be able to dump the people who need the coverage the most. The resulting risk sharing will be just that, risk sharing, rather than a bunch of healthy schmucks who are fattening the corporate treasury of an insurance company.
And this is an example of altruism, that endangered attitude that is so easily taken advantage of when the "other guy" decides to cheat and screw you over.
I'm in favor of that if it weren't for shitty manifestations of something called "Murphy's Law" which states that shit happens, *even if it's not your fault*
Should I be forced to pay for my own medical bills if some asshole runs me over and runs off to mexico?
Bull shit.
That's just plain wrong, and is a perfect example of "innocent bystander" that merits a community effort.
You are speaking based on theory. I'm speaking based on reality. Therefore, we are both right.
Ok, so the D&D analogy was a bad one. I have another one.
If a judge couldn't possibly make law, then why do we even need an appeals court system? And, more importantly, why do lawyers even BOTHER citing case law?
What about the doctrine of stare decisis and precedent? New case law affects future court decisions just as readily as newly passed laws do.
Answer this...
If judges don't make law, then why are doctors in the whole country BOUND by Roe v. Wade?
It's a regulation that was created entirely by the opinions of the JUDGES. No legislator was involved, and yet it has the same force as if congress itself passed it as a law. It is/was illegal for the government to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, even though/before there is/was no *statute* that says/said so.
Technically, the SCOTUS at the time wasn't legislating, but the case itself certainly has a binding effect that reaches beyond the litigants in said case. I don't know what you call something that has the same effect as law for people besides the litigants, but if it walks like a law, talks like a law, and SMELLS like a law, then as far as I'm concerned it is one.
I'm well aware that a judge can't write a law and pass it like congress can. However, their decisions have just as much effect on us as do regular bona fide laws. A judge's decision may not qualify as law per se, however it has the same effect it would have if it WERE a law.
Slashdot Mirror
A pity you had to turn an insightful into a troll by including racial slurs.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1360660/industry_tries_to_curb_cyber_squatting/
TFA is a wee bit off.
The 20 cent nonrefundability has already been ratified and will take effect in 2009.
The June thing was to prevent registrars from offering refunds in certain cases.
"Instead Icann will vote on a plan in June that would bar domain registrars from offering a refund for any domain names deleted during the grace period that exceeds 10 percent of its new registrations in a month. The board has already voted to make their 20-cent per domain fee nonrefundable in 2009 to deter high volume domain tasters who are sampling millions of names. "
Then the company could pull its "right to terminate" clause in its TOS, and point out that as a minor they have no right to an account without parental consent in the first place.
*DELETE*
I would like verisign to get on board with it as well, since they are the authoritative delegators for .com's and .net's
Verisign should fine anyone or deny service to anyone who lets X name registrations lapse, barring a retail or reseller agreement.
I had nothing to say about his character, merely his geek rating.
Since you are determined to twist my words and get my reasoning totally bass ackwards, I am not going to dignify any of your posts with a response in this article.
And I'm also terminating this debate in the interests of not making any mods waste points on an infinite loop.
I think that ex-post facto laws only apply in cases of civil and criminal liability.
Besides, there may be a statute of limitations that bars challenges to appointments that were years ago.
Huzzah for dictators who have a monopoly on information, for they will soon have a monopoly on our freedom.
Seriously...
What about DROP?
I was merely stating that the stupidity of his flapping his big fat gums at the trial and shooting himself in the foot calls into question his competence as a coder in my eyes. The fact that reiser has catastrophic directory corruption bugs is evidence of my theory.
Inflammatory, most likely. However, I do have at least some evidence to back it up. I'll leave it to the mods to decide if that's good enough.
Great, since the bankruptcy has a 10 percent fee incentive to fatten the bankruptcy estate, the court will probably be biased in favor of disallowing a constructive trust.
I probably should point out that Microsoft, AT&T, and Union Carbide are corporations/businesses, so they can't be jailed like people can.
No, he stole it from the same guy he bought MS-DOS from.
I don't think Hans Reiser ever bothered to watch The Simpsons.
"Drunken hicks of the jury..." --> chain gang.
Seriously, what kind of a moronic idiot would blabbermouth to the jury when he doesn't need to?
Speaking in your own defense is a gesture both of defiance and panic. It says to the jury "Hey, my case is going so rotten that I have to open my big fat mouth to defend myself even though the constitution says I don't have to", as well as a smartassed "Woo hoo I'm such a hotshot I can defend myself even when I'm facing first degree murder charges".
The ONLY time you SHOULD speak up is if you are forced to, and legally, you can only be forced to if you have immunity. In the case where you are being detained as a terrorist or are otherwise being deprived of your constitutional rights, you should still keep your mouth shut.
Ordinarily, I'd stick up for him purely out of geek pride. However, IMHO his sheer stupidity is grounds for revoking his geek card, and with what I now hear of hash collisions in ReiserFS causing directory garbage (silent corruption, always a MAJOR no-no in ANY situation, especially a kernel based file system), I feel more at ease that his conviction will not ruin too many things even if ReiserFS were to go belly up.
I honestly do hope that, in the interests of pure justice, the final verdict will accurately reflect the facts. But he no longer has my sympathy as a fellow geek.
And his company is likely to be sold off anyway. Even if he does eventually beat the guilty verdict, he's liable for wrongful death. Simply being convicted of murder is prima facie evidence in a civil lawsuit. He'll probably go bankrupt even if he DOES avoid prison. Just like OJ.
Hans Reiser, if you want to keep your geek card, then please keep your goddamned mouth SHUT.
You can still be detained by the police without being arrested.
If you get up and leave, that's fleeing, an arrestable offense.
And remember, constitutional protections only work if they are enforced. If some cop breaks a million laws in getting a confession and you can't prove it was coerced, you're screwed.
Plus if the feds accuse you of being a terrorist, you have no rights.
America needs to wake up and remember how our consitutional rights are really fragile.
If you run into an orphan work, you submit it to the copyright office and wait a certain period of time, during which the copyright office lists it as an orphan work.
If after the waiting period, nobody comes forward to claim it, you can go nuts.
If the owner surfaces, he is presumed to have vicariously done everything that you did with you as his agent. Pretty much, he's licensed it to you by his inaction and may be entitled to back royalties.
I think something similiar should apply for patents (Yes rambus I'm talking to you)
If this covers a spammer making a deal with a botnet controller, or a company making a deal with a spammer, I am completely in favor of this.
That's a toughie...and I hope congress addresses copyright licenses of all types, rather than just plain copyrights.
Of course, I'm hoping that the GPL would survive any rule that congress makes.
In any case, you could still use it yourself.
Actually, your insurance company pays for your losses whether or not you DO manage to sue the real culprit.
;).
And in some ways, you're not allowed to sue, at least, if your insurance pays, you can't sue for anything beyond your deductible.
I think there's a principal known as subrogation where, in exchange for covering your losses, you surrender your right to sue to the insurance company.
Of course, the fact that an insurance company gets to sue in your place and potentially recover, AND also gets paid insurance premiums for the privilege, doesn't speak well for how greedy they are to be making money coming and going. But that's a question for another arena
And spreading the risk is one of the functions of insurance. Just with government funded insurance, the "risk sharers" just also happen to be tax payers. Uncle comment by AK Marc (uid 707885) was right on the point.
The old fashioned rule of "tough shit" whenever something goes wrong is exactly the attitude adopted by people who play the dog eat dog game for keeps in the real world. It is also the attitude of insurance companies who would LOVE to use genetic testing as a way to cherry pick among their insured.
With a ban on discrimination, insurance companies won't be able to dump the people who need the coverage the most. The resulting risk sharing will be just that, risk sharing, rather than a bunch of healthy schmucks who are fattening the corporate treasury of an insurance company.
And this is an example of altruism, that endangered attitude that is so easily taken advantage of when the "other guy" decides to cheat and screw you over.
What are you going to use to write the compilers?
I'm in favor of that if it weren't for shitty manifestations of something called "Murphy's Law" which states that shit happens, *even if it's not your fault*
Should I be forced to pay for my own medical bills if some asshole runs me over and runs off to mexico?
Bull shit.
That's just plain wrong, and is a perfect example of "innocent bystander" that merits a community effort.
If you are a US company, or ANY company for that matter, doing business in another country, you have to follow their laws.
By your logic I could say that Microsoft should be immune to the EU anti-trust regulators.
And the funny thing is he's STILL wrong.
Companies like Redhat are doing quite nicely on selling enterprise editions of linux, which btw is GPL'ed.
You are speaking based on theory. I'm speaking based on reality. Therefore, we are both right.
Ok, so the D&D analogy was a bad one. I have another one.
If a judge couldn't possibly make law, then why do we even need an appeals court system? And, more importantly, why do lawyers even BOTHER citing case law?
What about the doctrine of stare decisis and precedent? New case law affects future court decisions just as readily as newly passed laws do.
Answer this...
If judges don't make law, then why are doctors in the whole country BOUND by Roe v. Wade?
It's a regulation that was created entirely by the opinions of the JUDGES. No legislator was involved, and yet it has the same force as if congress itself passed it as a law. It is/was illegal for the government to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, even though/before there is/was no *statute* that says/said so.
Technically, the SCOTUS at the time wasn't legislating, but the case itself certainly has a binding effect that reaches beyond the litigants in said case. I don't know what you call something that has the same effect as law for people besides the litigants, but if it walks like a law, talks like a law, and SMELLS like a law, then as far as I'm concerned it is one.
I'm well aware that a judge can't write a law and pass it like congress can. However, their decisions have just as much effect on us as do regular bona fide laws. A judge's decision may not qualify as law per se, however it has the same effect it would have if it WERE a law.
Oh dear me, now I'm a pot calling the kettle black.
Earlier this week I chastised someone for neglecting to notice my sarcasm, and now I go and do the same damn thing I was bitching about.
...ouch...